Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010063612022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./127/2022 REHENA BEGUM W/O- DR. MOHD. MERAJ ALAM, D/O- MUSLIM ALI, R/O- SUNDARBARI, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:DR. MOHD. MERAJ ALAM S/O- HAJEE MOHAMMED NAJMUDDIN R/O- GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, H A AHMED,DR. R HOQUE,MR A S SK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A DAS (R-2),MR. A PHUKAN (R-2,MR. A CHETIA (R-2),MR. P DEKA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Baishya, learned Page No.# 2/3 Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State respondents; and Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. By this application filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioner against the final report was rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he lodged an FIR against respondent No. 2 on 09.07.2015, alleging, inter alia, that the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) of respondent No. 2 was a fake and a forged document. It is further stated that, by using the said PRC, respondent No. 2 had secured admission to the MBBS course and, he thereafter, started working under the Government of Assam. 4. The petitioner further states that on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted an F.R., i.e., Final Report, exonerating respondent no. 2 from the charges. Thereafter, the said F.R., i.e., Final Report was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Kamrup (M) and that, the case was subsequently handed over to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M). In pursuance to the submission of the Final Report, the court had issued a notice to the informant as per the procedure and the informant on receipt of the notice had filed a Protest Petition against the same. 5. In the said Protest Petition, it is seen that the petitioner has prayed for considering the FIR lodged as a complaint with the additional prayer for not accepting the F.R. of the case lodged by him. The learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M) by order dated 03.03.2022, had observed that the protest petition filed by the petitioner/informant does not fulfill the Page No.# 3/3 essential requirements of a complaint as per Section 2 (d) of the CrPC. Further, it was observed that, an FIR cannot be treated as a complaint, although an objection petition can be treated as a complaint but in the said objection petition, the prayer was made to consider the FIR as the complaint, which, however, cannot be done, as the same was not provided under the Law. It is also seen that the petitioner/informant was given the liberty to file a proper protest petition as per law. 6. It is noticed that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M), by its order dated 03.03.2022, had not finally passed an order by accepting the F.R. or by rejecting the objection petition filed by the petitioner/informant. Rather an observation was made that the said objection petition was not in the proper form as per law and accordingly, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a proper protest petition. As such, it is noticed that the said order dated 03.03.2022, cannot be stated to be a final order since the same has provided that a fresh protest petition can be filed. 7. As such, the petitioner is allowed to file a fresh protest petition as directed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M). 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant