Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1524 (UTT)

ROHITASH SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/366/2026 · 2026-03-11

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:1618 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/366/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present C-528 application has been filed by the applicant seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2025, as well as the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 352 of 2024. The applicant has further prayed that the court concerned be directed to treat the protest petition filed by the applicant as a complaint case in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant had filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondent nos. 2 and 3, pursuant to which, on the direction of the learned Magistrate, an F.I.R. under Section 420 I.P.C. was registered. It is further submitted that after investigation, the police submitted a final/closure report before the court concerned. Aggrieved by the said report, the applicant filed a protest petition, 2026:UHC:1618 registered as Misc. Case No. 352 of 2024, against the final report dated 05.01.2024 submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Haridwar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order dated 05.04.2025, proceeded to treat the matter as a complaint case; however, instead of treating the protest petition as the complaint, the learned court below treated the final/closure report as the complaint case. It is contended that the applicant thereafter preferred Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2025. 6. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that both the courts below have erred in law in treating the final/closure report of the police as a complaint case. It is submitted that as per the settled position of law, when a protest petition containing specific objections and supporting material is filed against a final report, the same is required to be treated as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that by treating the final report as the complaint instead of the protest petition, the learned court below failed to consider the specific objections and materials brought on record by the applicant. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that 2026:UHC:1618 it appears that there may be a typographical or clerical error in the order impugned, whereby the expression “final report” has been mentioned instead of “protest petition”, though the intention of the court was to treat the protest petition as a complaint case. 8. Perusal of the record as well as the orders impugned indicates that the learned court below intended to proceed with the matter as a complaint case, however, due to an apparent clerical/typographical mistake, the final report has been mentioned in place of the protest petition. 9. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 352 of 2024, as well as the judgment and order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2025, are hereby set aside. The court concerned is directed to treat the protest petition filed by the applicant as a complaint case and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the C-528 application stands disposed of. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 3. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.03.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004 ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.03.13 16:53:42 +05'30'