IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 802/2009 Dr. Manoj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …….Respondents November 5, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 96 of 2009, R.D. Sharma v. Arun & Others, pending before the court of CJM, Haridwar. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Briefly stated facts of this case are that respondent no. 2 Sri R.D. Sharma was earlier the Registrar of Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (for short, the University). He lodged an FIR in PS Jwalapur, Haridwar alleging therein that the petitioner Manoj Kumar, Lecturer, Mathematics in the said University in collusion with some other teachers of the University, prepared pornographic MMS and CD of a lady teacher of the same University. Some lady teachers of the University complained the matter in writing to the concerned authority of the University. On receiving the complaint, departmental proceedings were initiated against the accused teachers and the petitioner was suspended and FIR was lodged in the police station against those accused teachers including the petitioner for initiating the necessary action against them. The police after conducting the investigation submitted Final Report dated 4.2.2009 before the court concerned stating therein that there was not sufficient 2 evidence to prosecute the accused. Thereafter CJM, Haridwar registered a Miscellaneous Case No. 96/2009 and issued notice to the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, respondent no. 3, Sri A.K. Chopra, Registrar of the aforesaid university filed objections against the final report dated 4.2.2009. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the report was lodged by Sri R.D. Sharma/respondent no. 2, but the objections against the aforesaid final report have been filed by Sri A.K. Chopra, respondent no. 3, who is not empowered under the law to file the same inasmuch as only the complainant to the case can file objections against the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in a criminal case. I do not find any force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The report was lodged by the respondent no. 2 Sri R.D. Sharma in the capacity of the Registrar of the University. Sri R.D. Sharma subsequently succeeded by Sri A.K. Chopra, the respondent no. 3, who at present is discharging the functions of Registrar of the University. Therefore, respondent no. 3, being the Registrar, was fully competent to file the objections against the final report on behalf of the University. Mr. R.D. Sharma lodged the FIR against the accused teachers on behalf of the University in the capacity of Registrar of the that University. The FIR was not lodged by him in individual capacity. Even the contents of the FIR, which was written on the official letterhead of the University, reveal that the FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 2 on behalf of the University. Therefore, when Sri A.K. Chopra/respondent no. 3 became the Registrar of the University in place of Sri R.D. Sharma/respondent no. 2, he was totally empowered to contest the case on behalf of the University. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that no interference in the proceedings of the Misc. Case No. 96/2009 3 pending in the court of CJM, Haridwar is required by this Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.11.2009 PRABODH