Devesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 202

An FIR was lodged against the petitioner alleging commission of rape on the false promise of marriage.

After investigation, the police submitted a Negative Final Report (FR) in favour of the petitioner.

The complainant filed a protest petition against the negative final report.

The Magistrate passed a common order accepting the negative final report and rejecting the protest petition.

The complainant challenged the Magistrate’s order before the Revisional Court through a criminal revision petition.

The Revisional Court allowed the revision petition and held that the Magistrate ought to have passed two separate orders—one on the final report and another after inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC on the protest petition.

Aggrieved by the Revisional Court’s decision, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court.

The petitioner argued that the complainant had previously lodged multiple similar FIRs across the country and many of them had resulted in acquittals or quashing.

The High Court examined whether a Magistrate can pass separate orders on a final report and protest petition after accepting the final report.

The Rajasthan High Court held that once a Magistrate passes an order on a Negative Final Report, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and cannot subsequently pass another order on the protest petition.

The Court clarified that when a protest petition is filed along with objections to the final report, the Magistrate must consider the Final Report, protest petition, and supporting evidence together.

The Court observed that at such stage, the Magistrate has only three options:

• accept the Final Report;

• reject the Final Report and take cognizance; or

• direct further investigation.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Magistrate is not expected to pass two separate orders—one on the Final Report and another later on the protest petition.

The Court ruled that the procedure suggested by the Revisional Court was unknown to the scheme of the CrPC.

The High Court relied upon Supreme Court precedents while interpreting the procedure relating to Final Reports and protest petitions.

The Court held that once an order is passed on the Final Report, the Magistrate loses jurisdiction over the matter in that capacity.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the common order passed by the Magistrate was legally valid.

The order passed by the Revisional Court was set aside for being legally unsustainable.

The matter was remitted for passing fresh orders in accordance with law.

The judgment clarifies procedural law regarding handling of Negative Final Reports and protest petitions by Magistrate Courts.

The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of functus officio, which prevents a judicial authority from re-exercising jurisdiction after final adjudication on the same issue.

The ruling ensures procedural certainty and avoids multiplicity of proceedings before Magistrates.

The decision prevents unnecessary duplication of judicial orders relating to the same Final Report proceedings.

The Court emphasized that the CrPC contemplates a consolidated adjudication at the stage of consideration of the Final Report and protest petition.

By rejecting the Revisional Court’s interpretation, the High Court preserved procedural efficiency within criminal justice administration.

The judgment may serve as an important precedent for subordinate courts dealing with Final Reports, protest petitions, and cognizance proceedings.

The ruling also protects accused persons from prolonged uncertainty due to repeated judicial orders on the same issue.