2026:UHC:2682 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.687 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mrs. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been instituted by the applicant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No.22 of 2024, as well as the judgment and order dated 28.08.2025 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed and the order accepting the Final Report was affirmed. 3. As per the case set up by the applicant, her father was employed as a Lineman with Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited and was posted at Duggadda Block, Naalikhal Circle. It is alleged that on 21.05.2018, while discharging his official duties, he suffered fatal electrocution resulting in his death. In this backdrop, the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned, pursuant to which an F.I.R. was directed to be registered against the private respondents. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report opining that no cognizable offence was made out. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed a Protest Petition; however, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 21.02.2025, accepted the Final Report and rejected the Protest Petition. The said order was assailed in Criminal Revision, but the learned Revisional Court, by judgment dated 28.08.2025, dismissed the Criminal Revision, thereby affirming the order of the Magistrate. Hence, 2026:UHC:2682 the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material available on record in its correct perspective. It is submitted that the death of the applicant’s father was a direct consequence of gross negligence attributable to the officials of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, who failed to ensure necessary safety measures and proper shutdown of the electric line. It is further contended that the version put forth by the departmental officials, attributing negligence to the deceased himself on the ground that he had not taken proper shutdown, is a concocted and self-serving explanation intended to shield the erring officials from legal consequences. It is also argued that specific and categorical allegations were levelled in the F.I.R. against respondent nos. 2 to 5; however, the Investigating Officer conducted a perfunctory and biased investigation and mechanically submitted the Final Report without collecting relevant evidence or examining material witnesses. Learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate, while considering the Protest Petition, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law and did not independently assess whether a prima facie case was made out. It is further submitted that the Revisional Court also erred in law in affirming the order of the Magistrate without proper application of mind, thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the investigation in the present case was conducted in a fair, impartial and comprehensive manner, and all relevant aspects were duly examined by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the Final Report was filed only after considering the statements of witnesses, departmental records, and other material collected during the course of investigation, which revealed that the deceased himself had undertaken work on the line without ensuring proper shutdown, thereby contributing to the unfortunate incident. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate, while dealing with the Protest Petition, has passed a reasoned and speaking order, taking 2026:UHC:2682 into account the entire material on record and rightly concluded that no sufficient ground existed to proceed against the accused persons. It is also submitted that the Revisional Court, upon reappraisal of the record, has affirmed the findings of the Magistrate, and there is no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Investigating Officer, after conducting due investigation, has submitted a Final Report, which has been accepted by the learned Magistrate by a reasoned order. The Magistrate has considered the material collected during investigation as well as the contents of the Protest Petition and has arrived at a conscious conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. The Revisional Court has also examined the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order and has affirmed the same by assigning cogent reasons. No material has been brought on record by the applicant to demonstrate that the investigation was tainted with mala fides or that any crucial evidence was deliberately ignored by the Investigating Officer. Mere allegation of negligence, without substantiating the same by credible material, would not be sufficient to discard the findings recorded by the investigating agency and the Courts below. 7. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of appeal to reappreciate the evidence or to substitute its own view in place of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 16.04.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb 7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874 46351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.16 17:07:54 +05'30'