IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2008 Munir Khan S/o late Haidar Khan R/o Takana Colony, Pithoragarh, U ttarakhand. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through District Magistrate, Pithoragarh. 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the revisionist. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Govt. Advocate with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.02.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, whereby said court has accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, in Crime No. 83 of 2007. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that, an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) was moved by the complainant / revisionist, on the basis of which Crime No. 83 of 2007, was registered against accused Vipin Chandra Sharma, in respect of offences punishable under Section 195, 166, 394, 504, 506 of I.P.C. After investigation the police submitted final report stating that no offence is said to have been made out against the accused Vipin Chandra Sharma. However, from the case diary it appears that after the revisionist / complainant did not stop the vehicle at the barrier on the instructions of the accused Vipin Chandra Sharma, a police officer, the complainant was chased. When the complainant reached within the territorial limits of District Bageshwar, Vipin Chandra Sharma, police officer, posted at Thal (where the complainant did not stop the vehicle at barrier) wanted custody of the complainant. It has also come on the record that the said police officer (Vipin Chandra Sharma) wanted to implicate the complainant in a false case of recovery of Charas, as he did not obey the instructions of said police officer, to stop the vehicle and get it checked. In the investigation it has come that the dispute between the complainant and the accused was only in respect of said incident due to which the complainant got lodged the first information report by moving application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, and actually there was no incident of any kind of robbery 3 etc. The record further reveals that as the complainant apprehended false action against him at the hands of the police officer, whose instructions were disobeyed, as such, he got the crime registered in which the final report has been submitted. 4) The Magistrate while accepting the final report after considering the protest petition filed by the complainant has given detailed reasons for accepting the report. This Court does not find any error of law committed by the Magistrate in accepting the final report. The revision is dismissed, accordingly. (Both Stay Application No. 120 of 2008 as well as Urgency Application No. 1190 of 2010 stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 30, 2010. H. Negi 4