Deepak Tewari vs State of Uttarakhand

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.03.2010, passed by Sessions Judge Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2009, Deepak Tewari v. State, affirming the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Haldwani, accepting the final report in Crime No. 1467 of 2007, Police Station Kathgodam, relating to offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 511 of I.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged First Information Report against Kailash Chand Balutiya, Pankaj Rawdi, Praveen Singh, Smt Sobha, Ashok Pal Singh and Smt Santosh Singh, which was registered as crime No. 1467 of 2007, relating to offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted final report with the finding that no offence is said to have been made out. Said final report was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 62 of 2008, and notices were issued to the petitioner/complainant. He filed protest petition before the Magistrate. The Magistrate vide its order dated 27.09.2008 after considering protest petition directed the Investigating Officer to further investigate the matter. It appears that another Investigating Officer further investigated the matter and submitted his report again affirming the earlier submitted final report. Once again the petitioner filed his objection to the report of the Investigating Officer. After hearing the parties the Magistrate vide its order-dated 06.07.2009, accepted the final report. Aggrieved by said order the petitioner filed criminal revision No. 49 of 2009. The revisional court after hearing the parties dismissed the revision and concurred with the view taken by the Magistrate.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have erred in law in accepting the final report and affirming the same. The Investigation Officers have submitted their reports after investigation and found that no offence was committed by the accused nor the document alleged was found to be forged document. The revisional court has also taken a similar view to the one taken by the Magistrate.

Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C is summarily dismissed.