JUDGMENT 1. The second respondent filed a suit in OS No. 229 of 2014 against the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction and thereafter he filed a private complaint under sec. 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the petitioners who are the members of Shri Bhadraswami Hindulida Vagadavar Shikshana Samsthe have misappropriated the funds received from the Government. 2. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police for investigation under sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed B report before the learned Magistrate. The second respondent filed protest petition to the B report submitted by the police. The learned Magistrate by order dtd. 7/10/2021 rejected the B report filed by the police and further took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 418, 420, 465, 468 of IPC against the Petitioners. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting B report without assigning any reason is not a speaking order and further rejecting B report as well as taking cognizance simultaneously is not permissible in law. In support, he places reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar V/s. Mrs. KMC Vasantha and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar 1725. 4. He further submits that the private complaint filed against the petitioners for the offences which are cognizable is not maintainable since the complaint is filed without complying with the requirements of Sec. 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State would submit that, in the absence of any material to establish that the petitioners have committed offences alleged against them the police have rightly filed the B report. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Magistrate by taking into account the material on record , which clearly discloses that the petitioners have committed offences alleged against them, has rightly rejected B report and further taken cognizance of the said offences. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The police after investigation filed B report before the learned Magistrate. On filing of protest petition, the learned Magistrate rejected the B report and further taken cognizance of offences alleged against the petitioners. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The police after investigation filed B report before the learned Magistrate. On filing of protest petition, the learned Magistrate rejected the B report and further taken cognizance of offences alleged against the petitioners. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate discloses that the learned Magistrate has not referred to any material placed before him to hold that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is not a speaking order and as such the impugned order passed by learned magistrate requires to be quashed. 9. The learned Magistrate was required to consider the protest petition and pass an order rejecting the B report at the first instance and thereafter proceed to record the sworn statement and take cognizance of the offences However the learned magistrate without passing a speaking order rejecting the B report at the first instance contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamalapathi Trivedi V/s. State of West Bangal reported in (1980) 2 SCC 91 has simultaneously rejected the B report and recorded the sworn statement and taken cognizance which is not permissible in law. 10. The offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and as such the second respondent was required to comply with the requirements of Sec. 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C before filing the private complaint as held by the Apex court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & 3 Ors. The second respondent having not complied with the requirements of Sec. 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., the complaint filed by him is not maintainable. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The proceeding in CC.No.1898/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur is hereby quashed.