[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1052/2024 on 17 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1045
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/1052/2024
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Reituparana Joshi, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned
Brief Holders for the State.
3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for
C.B.I.
4. Present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking
quashing of the judgment and order dated
31.01.2024 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal
in Criminal Revision No.18 of 2023,
whereby the criminal revision filed by the
applicant was dismissed and the order
dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Kirtinagar, District
Tehri Garhwal was affirmed. By the said
order dated 21.04.2023, the learned
Magistrate had accepted the final report
submitted in Case Crime No.30 of 2021
and Case Crime No.31 of 2021, under
Section 365 I.P.C., and rejected the protest
petition moved by the applicant. The
applicant has further prayed for a
direction to conduct further investigation
in the aforesaid case crimes and to
transfer the investigation to the Central
Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that on 14.11.2005 the
applicant's minor son, aged about 12
years, along with another boy of the same
village, went missing. It is contended that
though the applicant immediately
approached the concerned police station,
2026:UHC:1045
the police did not promptly register the
report and merely gave oral assurances
that efforts would be made to trace the
missing children. It is further submitted
that after considerable delay, the F.I.R.
was eventually registered and investigation
commenced; however, the Investigating
Officer submitted a final report dated
17.08.2022 stating that no clue could be
found.
6. He would further submit that against
the submission of the final report, the
applicant filed a protest petition before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Kirtinagar,
which came to be rejected vide order dated
21.04.2023. The criminal revision
preferred by the applicant against the said
order was also dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal
on 31.01.2024.
7. It is argued on behalf of the applicant
that both the courts below failed to
appreciate that the investigation was
perfunctory and not conducted in a fair
and scientific manner. According to
learned counsel, the applicant had
approached the police authorities after
several years and supplied childhood
photographs of the missing boy, yet no
effort was made to use scientific
techniques for age progression or to
circulate digitally enhanced images. It is
further submitted that the applicant's wife
had received a telephonic call, which she
believed to be from their missing son;
however, the police did not properly
investigate the said lead. On these
premises, it is contended that further
investigation or transfer of investigation to
the C.B.I. is warranted.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
would submit that after registration of the
F.I.R., the police authorities undertook all
reasonable steps to trace the missing
2026:UHC:1045
child; that, the pamphlets containing the
photograph and description of the missing
boy were circulated in the locality and
adjoining areas; that, the photographs
were also published in newspapers of wide
circulation. It is further submitted that the
mobile number provided by the applicant's
wife was thoroughly examined and, upon
inquiry, it was found to belong to a person
named Jyoti, resident of Faridabad,
Haryana, and no connection with the
missing child could be established and
despite sincere efforts, no clue regarding
the whereabouts of the missing boy could
be found.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the
C.B.I. submits that in view of the
investigation already conducted and the
absence of any material suggesting bias,
mala fide or deliberate inaction on the part
of the local police, there is no justification
for transfer of investigation to the C.B.I.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, this Court
finds that the learned Magistrate, while
accepting the final report, has recorded
specific and cogent reasons. The order
reflects due consideration of the material
collected during investigation. It has been
noted that the Investigating Officer
undertook reasonable and necessary steps
to trace the missing boy, including
publication of his photographs in
newspapers, distribution of pamphlets in
surrounding areas and verification of the
telephonic lead furnished by the
applicant's wife. The learned Magistrate
further observed that the protest petition
did not disclose any fresh or concrete
material so as to warrant rejection of the
final report or to direct further
investigation. The revisional court, upon
independent appraisal of the record,
concurred with the findings recorded by
2026:UHC:1045
the Magistrate and found no illegality,
perversity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order.
11. This Court also finds that no material
has been brought on record to
demonstrate mala fide action, deliberate
inaction or such grave procedural
irregularity in the investigation as would
justify interference in exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mere
dissatisfaction with the manner of
investigation or suggestion that certain
scientific techniques could have been
adopted, particularly after considerable
lapse of time and in the absence of any
supporting foundation, would not ipso
facto render the investigation illegal, unfair
or tainted.
12. The inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and only to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court
or to secure the ends of justice. In the
present case, no exceptional circumstance
is made out so as to warrant such
interference.
13. In view of the above, no illegality,
perversity or abuse of process is made out
for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Accordingly, the C-482 application is
dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
17.02.2026
Mamta
