IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 420 of 2010 Inspector Uni Ram Arya S/o late Dev Ram Arya S.H.O. Kotwali Champawat District Champawat. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. District and Sessions Judge, Champawat. ...…………. Respondents Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2010, Lalli Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that one Roshan Jahan submitted a complaint at police station Champawat, in respect of offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. Said complaint was registered as Non Cognizable Report (for short NCR) on 08.03.2010. A necessary entry was made in the General Diary at Sl. No. 19 on 08.03.2010. Thereafter, it appears that the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, on which the Magistrate directed the Station House Officer of police station Champawat to register the case under Section 326 / 120-B of I.P.C., on 15.03.2010. The order dated 15.03.2010, passed by the Magistrate, was challenged by the accused Lalli before the Sessions Judge by filing a criminal revision (No. 11 of 2010). After hearing the parties, the revision was dismissed. Learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 08.04.2010, whereby the revision was dismissed, made certain directions that the Superintendent of Police should make an adverse entry against the Station House Officer of police station Champawat for not sending the copy of NCR and General Diary to the Magistrate for 26 days. 4) From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that neither the Station House Officer was called by the revisional court, nor was he heard as to what were the reasons in not sending the report to the Magistrate. Apart from this, Section 157 of Cr.P.C. requires 3 sending of the copy of report (First Information Report) to the Magistrate. It does not require that the NCR be sent to the Magistrate. In the opinion of this Court, learned Sessions Judge appears to have made unnecessary observations and issued unnecessary directions to the Superintendent of Police to make adverse entry against the petitioner (Station House Officer, Kotwali Champawat) in the matter. 5) Therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with a direction that the impugned order dated 08.04.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2010, is hereby quashed only to the extent direction has been made to the Superintendent of Police for making adverse entry against the petitioner. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 14, 2010. H. Negi 4