Judgment : Subhash Upadhyay, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Earlier the applicant had filed a Criminal Misc. Application No.1183 of 2014 under Section C482 Cr.P.C. wherein summoning order 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Case No.47/2014 was quashed and the learned Trial Court was directed to pass a fresh order. The order dated 05.10.2016 passed in C482 No.1183/2014 reads as under:- “2. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 147, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Petitioner was summoned vide order dated 08.07.2014. The Court has gone through the summoning order dated 08.07.2014, which is a cryptic order. The trial court is required to see whether the prima facie case is made out or not, but, at the same time, there has to be due application of mind by the summoning court. Merely stating that the charge-sheet has been perused and summons be issued, is not proper. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Srinagar Garhwal in Misc. Case No. 47 of 2014 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter the cognizance order dated 16.01.2017 has been passed which is impugned in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a PhD. Holder (in physics and Nano-science) from Jawaharlal Nehru University and a member of ‘Ganga Ahvaan’, which is a campaign to conserve the environment and culture associated with our National river Ganga and her source the divine Himalayas; that, due to competency and active participation in Ganga Ahvaan regarding conservation of Ganga and Himalayas, applicant was recognized and honored by Govt. of India by selecting him as an expert member for the ‘Expert Body’ constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for studying the ‘Environmental Degradation and Impact of Hydroelectric Projects During The June 2013 Disaster in Uttarakhand’. of India by selecting him as an expert member for the ‘Expert Body’ constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for studying the ‘Environmental Degradation and Impact of Hydroelectric Projects During The June 2013 Disaster in Uttarakhand’. The applicant was specifically given a task by the Expert Body to formulate a document of ‘Himalayan Policy’ for Uttarakhand which was asked by MoEF in its given terms of reference; that, on 13.05.2013 on the auspicious day of Akshay Triteeya, applicant and other persons were performing puja at the Dhari Devi Temple when a group of anti-social elements shouting slogans in an aggressive manner gathered outside the temple and tried to enter the temple and instead of stopping these persons the police authorities asked the applicants to leave the temple; that, FIR was lodged by the applicant on 13.05.2013 at 15:45 against respondent no.2 and other persons which was registered as Case Crime No.18/2013; that, FIR was also lodged by Dr. Bharat Jhunjhunwala against respondent no.2 and others persons on 22.06.2012; though with regard to some other incident as the respondent no.2 and other persons were acting on behalf of GVK company; that, as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicant, respondent no.2 also lodged a FIR against the applicant and other persons on 13.05.2013 at 17:40 hrs. which was registered as Case Crime No.19/2013; that, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Srinagar took cognizance vide order dated 08.07.2014 against the applicant; that applicant challenged the said order in C482 petition which was allowed and again a summoning order dated 16.01.2017 was passed against the applicant which is challenged in the present C482 petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present case is a case of counter blast as the FIR against respondent no.2 has been lodged prior in time by the applicant and the respondent no.2 and their associates were involved in similar incident earlier also. 6. He submits that against respondent no.2 also a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147,323,504 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and the cognizance order was passed against respondent no.2 in Case Crime No.18 of 2013. 7. He further submits that in Criminal Case No.46/2014, ‘State Vs. 6. He submits that against respondent no.2 also a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147,323,504 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and the cognizance order was passed against respondent no.2 in Case Crime No.18 of 2013. 7. He further submits that in Criminal Case No.46/2014, ‘State Vs. Ravindra Silwal’ learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal dealt with the entire incident in detail and also observed that for the same incident a case is also registered against the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to the faulty investigation, respondent no.2 and the other accused were acquitted and the State has not filed any appeal against the said order passed on 14.11.2019 and as such the said order has attained finality. 9. Learned State Counsel, on written instructions, submits that no appeal against order dated 14.11.2019 has been filed by the State and he also fairly concedes that the same incident which occurred on 13.05.2013 has been the subject matter of the said criminal case which has been discussed in detail by the learned Magistrate in its order dated 14.11.2019. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Perusal of the record reveals that the incident of 13.05.2013 was also the subject matter of case no.46 of 2014 which has been decided on 14.11.2019. The said incident has been dealt with in detail by the learned Magistrate and it has been held that two FIRs for the same incident were filed one by the applicant and the second by respondent no.2. 12. The investigation for the said incident was carried out in which cognizance order has been passed against the applicant under Sections 147, 504, 506 of IPC and against respondent no.2 and other persons under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 13. After discussing the entire incidence in detail, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to a conclusion that the investigation was faulty and the electronic evidence was not correctly collected. The operative portion of the order dated 14.11.2019 reads as under:- 14. The said order dated 14.11.2019 has attained finality. 13. After discussing the entire incidence in detail, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to a conclusion that the investigation was faulty and the electronic evidence was not correctly collected. The operative portion of the order dated 14.11.2019 reads as under:- 14. The said order dated 14.11.2019 has attained finality. In the considered view of the Court, subjecting the applicant to face trial for the same incident which has been investigated in which respondent no.2 and other persons have been acquitted, on account of faulty investigation, would amount to abuse of process of law. Even otherwise on reading of the FIR and the cognizance order, no ingredients under Section 147, 504 and 506 IPC are made out against the applicant. 15. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Misc. Application under C482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 19.12.2013, cognizance order dated 16.01.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Case No.47 of 2014, ‘State Vs. Hemant Dhyani and Others’ pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Srinagar Garhwal are quashed qua the applicant. 16. With the above observations, the Criminal Misc. Application under Section C482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. 17. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.