IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 490 of 2004 Sarjeet Singh S/o Sri Harbansh Singh ……Petitioner Versus State and others …….Respondents Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for State/respondent No. 1. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 17. Dated:-07-12-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on correction/clarification application No. 784 of 2010. By means of this application, the petitioner has prayed to correct/clarify the order dated 20.02.2008, passed by this Court on the ground that in pursuance to the order of learned Judicial Magistrate on 05.10.2004, First Information Report was lodged on 14.10.2004, against the respondents/accused. Hence the learned revisional court has committed gross error of law while passing the impugned order dated 16.10.2004, remanding the matter back before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, to decide it again in the light of observation made in the impugned order. This Court, vide order dated 20.02.2008, dismissed the petition, filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and observed that learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge have not committed any error of law while passing the impugned order in remanding back the matter before Learned Magistrate to decide the application afresh, which was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court that the First Information 2 Report was lodged on 14.10.2004, against the respondents/accused in pursuance to the order dated 05.10.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. In para-5 of the correction/clarification application, it has been mentioned that final report had already been submitted, which is lying pending before Judicial Magistrate. In view of the fact that since the final report has already been submitted before the authority concerned, the applicant/petitioner has a right to file a protest petition before the Magistrate concerned. If any correction/clarification is made at this stage in the order that would be a futile exercise. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is disposed of with liberty to file protest petition before the Magistrate concerned. (B.S.Verma, J.) 07-12-2010 S