2025:UHC:6499 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/409/2017 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Faizan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 04.12.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Haridwar in Case No. 37 of 2013, whereby the final report submitted in Case Crime No. 96 of 2009, under Sections 376(G), 452, and 506 IPC, has been accepted and the protest petition filed by the applicant against the same has been rejected. The applicant also seeks to challenge the order dated 16.07.2016, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2015 ‘Smt. Sahroon vs. State & Others’, whereby the revision preferred against the order dated 04.12.2013 was dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case, as per the record, are that on 15.04.2009, respondent nos. 2 to 6, allegedly armed with weapons, unlawfully entered the applicant’s residence, threatened her and her children, and committed rape upon her. The police registered the F.I.R. pursuant to the applicant's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; that, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report dated 17.05.2010. Aggrieved, the applicant filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, which was rejected by order dated 18.09.2010. The applicant challenged the said order by filing Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Haridwar. Vide order dated 29.02.2012, the revisional court set aside the order dated 18.09.2010 and remanded the matter for 2025:UHC:6499 reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. Thereafter, the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar directed the S.H.O. concerned to conduct further investigation, by order dated 03.01.2013. Pursuant thereto, a fresh final report was submitted on 11.03.2013. The applicant again filed a protest petition, which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Haridwar vide impugned order dated 04.12.2013. The final report dated 11.03.2013 was thereby accepted. Aggrieved, the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2015, which was dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar by order dated 16.07.2016. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned orders are illegal, perverse, and passed without proper application of judicial mind; that, the courts below ignored the deliberate action the police, who failed to promptly register the F.I.R., and consequently no medical examination of the applicant was conducted; that, the F.I.R. came to be registered only after judicial intervention under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the investigation was biased and collusive, as the Investigating Officer failed to examine the applicant or collect crucial evidence, yet proceeded to file final reports on both occasions. The courts below have passed mechanical and cursory orders in accepting the said final reports, which renders the impugned orders unsustainable. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the F.I.R. itself reveals that one Allaudin, named as an accused, had earlier lodged a separate criminal case against the applicant’s husband, who had allegedly eloped with Allaudin’s wife, therefore, it seems that the present F.I.R. has been lodged to exert undue pressure on Allaudin. It is argued that the police 2025:UHC:6499 conducted thorough investigations and submitted final reports on both occasions, and that the courts below have passed reasoned orders after due application of mind. 9. Learned State counsel would further submit that the present application raises disputed questions of fact and evidentiary issues, which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and must be examined during the course of trial. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. A perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that both the trial court and the revisional court have passed detailed and reasoned orders after considering the material on record. It is a well-settled legal principle that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases, to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. These powers are not intended to be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the findings of fact already arrived at by the subordinate courts. 12. In the present case, the contentions raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact and issues requiring appreciation of evidence, which are to be adjudicated during the course of trial and such matters cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. 14. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 23.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6499