IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 142 of 2008 1. Nawal Singh S/o Sri Surta. 2. Mahendra Singh S/o Sri Surta. 3. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Sri Nawal Singh. 4. Pramod Kumar S/o Sri Kanwal Singh. All R/o Village Badshahpur, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. ................. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Madan Singh S/o Sri Molhad Singh, R/o Village Badshahpur, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. ............... Respondents ..................... Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hon'ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. By an order passed on 31st October, 2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Roorkee, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioners and directed the issuance of process against them. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, invoking his revisioinal jurisdiction, who, vide his judgment dated 8th February, 2008, while dismissing the revision petition, affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Final report was filled before the learned Magistrate in terms of Section 173 Cr. PC. On 11.05.2007, the learned Magistrate, by being dissatisfied, ordered the reinvestigation of the case by another police officer. He, however, declined further reinvestigation vide his order dated 25th September, 2007 but permitted the complainant to file a protest petition because, despite the investigation having been carried out twice, The final report had exonerated the petitioners. It was consequent upon the filing of the protest petition that the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and, as noticed at the outset, passed the order dated 31st October, 2007. There is no doubt that while passing the aforesaid order, the Magistrate was acting in terms of Section 190(1)(b) CrPC. In my considered opinion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and based upon the details discussed by him in his order dated 31st October, 2007, the learned Magistrate did not commit any error in taking cognizance of the case, treating the case as one based on police report and issuing process against the petitioners. No interference is called for. The petition is dismissed in limine. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 14.03.2008 G