ORDER : This matter is taken up through Video Conference. Learned counsel Smt. R. Manjuladevi for Manju and Manju Associates for petitioner absent. Sri.K.Nageshwarappa learned HCGP for 1st respondent and Sri. L. Mahesh, learned counsel for 2nd respondent present before the Court. 2. Perused the ordersheet. The matter is of the year 2015. The proceeding before the trial court is of the year 2012. Considering the age and stage of the case, it does not appear to be proper to adjourn the case. Since learned counsel for petitioner is absent and there is no representation, I proceed to go ahead with the matter for disposal. In this connection, I have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2439 (Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.). Head note reads as under: “Criminal P.C.(2 Of 1974), S. 386Appeal Both appellant and his lawyer absent on appointed day for hearing – Court not bound to adjourn case but should dispose of appeal on merits – Dismissal of appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution – Not contemplated. Crl.A.No.1894 of 1979 D/28.11.1990(AII), Reversed. AIR 1987 SC 1500 , Overruled.” 3. This Criminal Revision petition is directed against the order dated 4th July 2015 passed in Crime.No.144/2012 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagalur, whereby, it is ordered to register a criminal case against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 114, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accused No.1/petitioner has come in this revision petition. 5. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties hereinafter are addressed in accordance with their status and rankings as stood before the trial court. 6. The complainant in this case is one G.S. Chandrashekhar. He filed a written complaint addressed to Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Chickmagalur against three accused viz., (i) Vikas Kumar; (2) Panchaksharaiah and (3) Manjeshwara. After investigation, the police submitted the final report as ‘B’ report, meaning thereby, ‘offences not established during investigation’. Upon filing of such ‘B’ report, it was challenged by the complainant by filing his objections or protest before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Chickmagalur. 7. After investigation, the police submitted the final report as ‘B’ report, meaning thereby, ‘offences not established during investigation’. Upon filing of such ‘B’ report, it was challenged by the complainant by filing his objections or protest before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Chickmagalur. 7. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagalur, after hearing held that there was a case made out prima facie against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 114, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and passed the order as under: “Register a criminal case against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.342, 324, 114,504 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. The question of sanction left open to be decided in the main judgment. Issue summons to accused Nos. 1 to 3 returnable by 21.8.2015.” 8. The question of sanction was left open to be decided in the main judgment. The facts as stated in the complaint are as under: Complaint is filed by one G.S.Chandrashekhar on 2.1.2012 stating that he was discharging his duties at Mallandur Police Station. At that time, Circle Inspector Panchaksharaiah called him over phone and threatened him that he would initiate departmental enquiry against him as he has not appeared for the Sports Meet. On the said date at 3.10 p.m. Police Sub Inspector Manjeshwara asked the complainant to meet the Superintendent of Police Chickmagalur. On the same day evening at 4.20 p.m. he along with PSI Manjeshwara went to the Chambers of Vikas Kumar, Superintendent of Police along with Panchaksharaiah, Circle Inspector. At that time, Panchaksharaiah made certain some allegations against the complainant, for that Mr. Vikash Kumar, Superintendent of Police abused the complainant and gave threat and threw a paper weight on the complainant. It crashed against right eyebrow and the complainant sustained bleeding injuries. Then he went to M. G.Hospital, Chickmagalur and took treatment and filed the complaint before Police Sub Inspector, Town Police Station. 9. FIR was registered in Crime No.144/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324,114,504,506 read with 34 of IPC and the investigation was handed over to Additional Superintendent of Polcie, Karwar, Uttara Kannada. On completion of the investigation, Additional Superintendent of Police, Karwar U.K. submitted ‘B’ report. 10. The complainant appeared before the court after ‘B’ report was submitted and filed objections to the ‘B’ Report. On completion of the investigation, Additional Superintendent of Police, Karwar U.K. submitted ‘B’ report. 10. The complainant appeared before the court after ‘B’ report was submitted and filed objections to the ‘B’ Report. It is contended that he had mentioned the facts in the complaint and the ‘B’ report submitted was not proper. He also contended that ‘B’ report filed by Additional Superintendent of Police, Karwar was not tenable either in law or on facts. He reiterated that accused No.2 had asked him as to why he was not participating in the police game, for which, complainant replied that he was not feeling well for which, accused No.2 threatened over phone by raising voice and on the same day accused No.2 informed that Superintendent of Police, Chickmagalur had called him to his office and thereafter, the complainant and accused No.3, went to the S.P. Office at about 4.20 p.m. and the complainant and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 went inside to the Chambers and accused No.2 closed the door by saying that they will teach him a lesson and made allegation and accused No.1 threw paper weight on the complainant, because of which, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, complainant lodged the report and also raised his contention that the investigation was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police Karwar, U.K and 'B’ report came to be filed and that was challenged. It is also contended that the investigation is not in order and biased and it was conducted by a officer below the rank of the accused. 11. Learned trial judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of CW1Chandrashekar, CW2 G. Ramachandra and CW3H.G. Gangaiah and documentary evidence of Ex.C1 to C18 on behalf of the complainant. 12. Learned trial judge on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, ordered to register a criminal case against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 114, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The question of sanction left open to be decided in the main judgment and also ordered to issue summons to accused Nos. 1 to 3 returnable by 21.8.2015. It is against the said order, accused No.1 Mr. Vikash Kumar Vikash has presented this revision petition. 13. When the matter was taken up, neither the counsel for the petitioner/accused nor the petitioner is present either physically or through VC. 1 to 3 returnable by 21.8.2015. It is against the said order, accused No.1 Mr. Vikash Kumar Vikash has presented this revision petition. 13. When the matter was taken up, neither the counsel for the petitioner/accused nor the petitioner is present either physically or through VC. In the Criminal proceedings when the petitioner is the person prosecuting it, his continuous absence or when he does not take up interest in prosecuting the proceedings, it may not be proper to grant an adjournment. On the other hand, the matter has to be proceeded with for disposal as per law. In other words, the dismissal for non prosecution may not be adhere in case of criminal proceedings. In this connection, I am guided by the judgment of the Apex Court as cited supra which is in respect of a criminal appeal. The present proceeding is a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 14. The evidence before the trial court is, oral testimony of complainant Chandrashekhar along with two witnesses and documentary evidence of Ex.C1 to C18. The learned trial judge has gone through the depositions of the witnesses and the documents filed before it. ‘B’ report was countered by the complainant. Further point that is available is, the written complaint filed before PSI, Town P.S. Chickmagalur on 3.1.2012 and the date of incident as stated above is 2.1.2012. 15. The point that was urged before the trial court was regarding the irregular investigation and prejudice and an officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police conducting the investigation of the matter against the Superintendent of Police with independent charge. 16. It is seen that the matter of sanction was also came up before the trial court as the accused are public servants. However, insofar as the aspect of sanction is concerned, the trial court has held that it is a matter that could be adjudicated during the trial. 17. Here, it is necessary to mention Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “197. However, insofar as the aspect of sanction is concerned, the trial court has held that it is a matter that could be adjudicated during the trial. 17. Here, it is necessary to mention Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that subsection will apply as if for the expression" Central Government" occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted. (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 , receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.” 18. No doubt, the procedures provides protection for the official acts done by a Public Servant in good faith. If it results injuries or loss and appears to be the ingredients of offences punishable under law, there is a bar to prosecute insofar as acts done in good faith in exercise of his official duty and protection is available him as he cannot be prosecuted. 19. If it results injuries or loss and appears to be the ingredients of offences punishable under law, there is a bar to prosecute insofar as acts done in good faith in exercise of his official duty and protection is available him as he cannot be prosecuted. 19. In this case there was no proceeding that was pending before the Superintendent of Police and the complainant was asked to go to police station and the Manjeshawara was informed by accused 2 and what happened in the chambers according to the complainant is that, he was confined and on allegation or complaint by other accused, the Superintendent of police abused the complainant and threw the paper weight to his face because of which he sustained bleeding injury. 20. In this connection, it is necessary to mention the Court takes cognizance of the offence and not that of the offender. The mode of appreciation or assessment of evidence differs in approach from the stage of referring the matter for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., taking cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., discharge under Section 238, 239 or 227 of Cr.P.C., summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., pronouncement of judgment under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The said Sections read are as under: Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. “156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.” Section 190 of Cr.P.C. “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under subsection (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” Section 238 of Cr.P.C. “238. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under subsection (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” Section 238 of Cr.P.C. “238. Compliance with section 207When, in any warrant case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of section 207.” Section 239 of Cr.P.C. “239. When accused shall be discharged If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing” Section 227 of Cr.P.C. “227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” Section 319 of Cr.P.C. “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under subsection (1), then (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses reheard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Co Section 232 of Cr.P.C. “232. Acquittal If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.” 21. Insofar as taking of cognizance (it is not the cognizance that is being challenged in this case at present) is concerned, it is guided by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Mrs. Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI Delhi and another (Criminal Appeal No.68/2012 dated 6.1.2012 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2982/2011) 22. Insofar as investigation is concerned, after registering the case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. investigation is taken up by police officer and the final report is submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that there is no classification of Reports such as ‘A’ report or ‘B’ report in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is being developed over the passage of time by way of convention. What all could be seen in procedural law is that, on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submits the material documents, objections statement, experts reports if any in that case before the jurisdictional Magistrate and it is for him to take further action. In this connection Section 173 of Cr.P.C., has to be looked into which reads as under: “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. In this connection Section 173 of Cr.P.C., has to be looked into which reads as under: “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation, (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in subsection (5). (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under subsection (2).” 23. In Column No.17 in the Final Report filed by the Police officer, the substance of the case is mentioned by the Investigating Officer and at the end of the day he concludes that the accused has committed an offence punishable under relevant provisions of law may be under IPC or other Acts. It is for the court to take cognizance under Section 191(c) of Cr.P.C. based on the police report after perusing the material. 24. The cognizance is taken for the offence and the accused persons are stated to be the offenders having committed the offence. In this connection it cannot be forgotten for a while that the Courts take cognizance of the offence and not that of the offenders that is why the best example for the same is Section 319 Cr.P.C. wherein a person may be summoned as accused though not originally stated in the final report. 25. In this connection it cannot be forgotten for a while that the Courts take cognizance of the offence and not that of the offenders that is why the best example for the same is Section 319 Cr.P.C. wherein a person may be summoned as accused though not originally stated in the final report. 25. It is also to be seen that under Section 238 or 239 or 227 Cr.P.C., the court peruses the materials, appreciates the same, peruses the documents and the reports made available before him and decides whether to fix the case for charge of such offences which the court finds fit or to discharge the accused barring that the final report is not a signal post showing the direction as to for which offence the court has to proceed and against which accused. The material placed before the court consisting of complaint, oral and documentary evidence suggest the Magistrate to proceed further. Hence, the order was passed. The reasons assigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate do not appear to be flawful or irregular or illegal. 26. Insofar as sanction is concerned, no law provides for calling to their chamber as part of official duty. Abuse cannot be considered as act of good faith and hitting with the paper weight cannot be considered as bonafide exercise of their duties. They are all breach of personal duty and encroachment of the right of another. Thus, no law provides for considering personal breach, excessive, assault manhandling or battle or fraud or forgery or cheating and the related to be brought within the Rule map of official duties. A public servant is entrusted with the responsibility to discharge his public duties to the betterment of the society within the norms provided in the constitution. The protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a guard of honour in excessive by a public servant. However, it has to be looked into and ascertain it during the trial. It appears that the petitioner wants to question every stage of the proceedings which in the circumstances do not appear to be proper. I find there are no grounds or merit to take up the matter for further proceedings and it is not tenable as a revision petition and the same is rejected at the admission stage itself.