IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 726 of 2007 Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and another. ………. Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …....…. Respondents Present : Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this Criminal Misc. Application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 13.06.2007 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no. 316 of 2007, which was registered on the submission of final report and filing of protest petition against the same pertaining to Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Brief Holder, it appears that an FIR No. 172 of 2003 was lodged for offence under section 395, 307, 397, 436 IPC by Gurdeep Kaur, wife of Bhagwan Singh. The said report was lodged in Police Station Nanakmatta against private respondents no. 2 to 4 - Jai Kishan, Bhagwan Singh, Hari Om. This FIR could be lodged by Gurdeep Kaur, taking recourse of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by way of moving an application to the court of concerned Magistrate. The police submitted the final report just on the next day of the lodging of the FIR i.e. on 23.11.2003. Therewithal, a report under Section 182 IPC was 2 forwarded by the Investigating Officer to launch the prosecution against the complainant Gurdeep Kaur because the entire facts stated in her FIR were found unsubstantial and Investigating Officer was of the view that just to set law and order machinery in motion, a false application was moved to the court of Magistrate. 3. Gurdeep Kaur filed a protest petition against submission of report against her under Section 182 IPC and that protest petition was got registered by the Magistrate with criminal case no. 316 of 2007. Gurdeep Kaur recorded her statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2006 and statement of her two witnesses namely PW2 Satnam Singh and PW3 Harnam Singh were recorded on 02.11.2006 and 28.03.2007 respectively. 4. The learned Magistrate, having gone through the statement of Gurdeep Kaur as well as her witnesses, accepted the final report as such and took cognizance for the offence under Section 182 IPC against Gurdeep Kaur by the impugned order dated 13.06.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that police in fact did not make any investigation because it submitted the final report without recording her statement and that of her witnesses, so such final report ought not to have been accepted by the Magistrate. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Brief Holder, it is also adverted that dispute, between opposite parties and Gurdeep Kaur, pertains to agriculture land. The opposite parties filed a civil suit no. 42 of 2003 titled as Jai Kishan Vs. Bhagwan Singh (husband of Gurdeep Kaur) wherein favourable order was passed on 3 08.10.2003 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khatima. Aggrieved by the order, Bhagwan Singh filed Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2003 in the court of District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2003. Being failed in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khatima on 08.10.2003 and thereafter, in the court of District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 14.11.2003 in civil litigation, Bhagwan Singh motivated his wife Gurdeep Kaur to lodge false FIR on 22.11.2003 against opposite parties. Witnesses Harnam Singh and Satnam Singh are not inhabitants of village Vidora, which is the dwelling place of complainant, both are chance witnesses. The learned Magistrate, while appreciating the background controversy of the civil litigation and the failure of Bhagwan Singh to have success in that litigation, accepted the final report submitted by the police and took cognizance of the matter under section 182 IPC against accused Gurdeep Kaur. Otherwise also, the facts stated in the report of Gurdeep Kaur, at all do not inspire confidence. The liberty cannot be extended to anyone to set the law machinery in motion by lodging false complaint and FIR just by examining chance witnesses. Learned Magistrate rightly refuses to take cognizance on the protest petition. 7. In view of the above, this petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. The Magistrate has passed an elaborate order, which is hereby affirmed. 8. Let the information be sent to the court below for proceeding ahead. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 17.10.2011 SKS