1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 180 of 2011 Lalit Kumar Jain S/o Sri Paras Kumar Jain R/o Desrakshak, Kankhal Presently resident of Shiwalik Drugs P .S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Sri Paras Kumar Jain R/o Desrakshak, Kankhal P .S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Dibakar Chamoli, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, Addl. Govt. Advocate, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 15.01.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 383 of 2010, Lalit Kumar Jain Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 01.09.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 104 of 2010. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a first information report at police station Kankhal, 2 which was registered as Crime No. 123 of 2002, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 of I.P.C., against his brother Manoj Kumar Jain. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found that no offence is made out against the accused, and submitted final report. On said final report, the Magistrate issued notices to the petitioner, who filed his protest petition. After hearing the parties, the Magistrate accepted the final report upholding the conclusions of the Investigating Officer. Aggrieved by said order dated 01.09.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 104 of 2010, petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 383 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, after hearing the parties, dismissed said revision and concurred with the view taken by the Magistrate. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conclusion of the Investigating Officer are wrong and against the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the petitioner. 5) Having gone through the impugned orders and other papers on record, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 24, 2011. H. Negi