1. Private complaint filed under IPC — Application by Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution under Section 494, Code of Criminal Procedure — Dispute over locus standi of Public Prosecutor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
State of Punjab, Appellant
Versus
Surjit Singh and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, (Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. Nuruddin Ahmad, Anil Kumar, Sablok and R. B. Datar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General of India (Mr. A. G. Pudissery, Advocate, with him), for Advocate-General for the State of Kerala; M/s. R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar, Advocates, for Advocate-General for the State of Gujarat; Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, for Advocate-General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Advocate-General for the State of Assam; Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, for Advocate-General for the State of Madras.
A Public Prosecutor can only apply for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if they are actually in charge of that specific case. They have no locus standi to withdraw a prosecution initiated and conducted by a private complainant.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 492, 493, 494 and 495 - Withdrawal from prosecution - Right of Public Prosecutor to file application under Section 494 in respect of a complaint filed by a private party and prosecuted by such party - The expression "withdraw from the prosecution of any person" in Section 494 contemplates that the Public Prosecutor filing the application must be the one already in charge of that particular case (Paras 11, 30, 31).
(B) Public Prosecutor - Locus standi - In a case initiated on a private complaint and conducted by the complainant or their counsel, the Public Prosecutor is not in charge of the prosecution and therefore has no locus standi to file an application for withdrawal under Section 494 (Paras 8, 31, 32).
Facts of the case:
A private complaint was filed before a Magistrate against two accused persons. During the proceedings, a Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 494 of the Code for permission to withdraw from the prosecution and discharge one of the accused, asserting the accused was falsely implicated. The complainant opposed the application on the ground that the Public Prosecutor was not in charge of the prosecution, as it was a private complaint conducted by the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The Public Prosecutor who can file an application under Section 494 must be the one already in charge of the particular case. Since the prosecution was being conducted by the private complainant and the Public Prosecutor was not in charge, the application for withdrawal was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether a Public Prosecutor is entitled to file an application under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw from the prosecution of a case initiated by a private complaint and conducted by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 494 must be interpreted in light of Section 493. The power to withdraw from prosecution is not a general power conferred on all Public Prosecutors but is limited to the Public Prosecutor actually in charge of the specific case. If a Public Prosecutor is not conducting the prosecution, they cannot "withdraw" from it. Allowing any Public Prosecutor to intervene in any case regardless of whether they are in charge would lead to anomalous results.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a Public Prosecutor can withdraw from a prosecution initiated by a private complaint when not previously in charge of the case versus the requirement of actual charge. (Para 4 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Analysis of Sections 492, 493, and 494 — Interpretation of the phrase withdraw from the prosecution — Requirement that the Public Prosecutor must be actually conducting the case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 29 , 30 )
4. A Public Prosecutor is entitled to file an application for withdrawal under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only if they are in charge of the case. (Para 30 , 31 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court order upholding that the Public Prosecutor had no locus standi to withdraw from the private complaint prosecution confirmed. (Para 32 , 33 )
6. Can a Public Prosecutor withdraw from a prosecution initiated via a private complaint under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Only if the Public Prosecutor is already in charge of and conducting that particular case. If the prosecution is conducted by a private complainant and the Public Prosecutor is not in charge, they have no locus standi to apply for withdrawal. (Para 8 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. What is the legal interpretation of the expression withdraw from the prosecution used in Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
The expression contemplates that the Public Prosecutor filing the application must be the one already in charge of that particular case. It implies the prosecution is already being conducted by the Public Prosecutor. (Para 11 , 18 , 29 , 30 )
8. How does Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inform the application of Section 494 regarding withdrawal?
Section 493 specifically refers to a Public Prosecutor being in charge of a particular case. Section 494 must be interpreted in light of Section 493, meaning the power to withdraw is limited to the Public Prosecutor actually in charge of the case. (Para 10 , 18 , 30 )
Judgement
VAIDIALINGAM, J. : The question that arises for consideration, in this criminal appeal, by special leave, is regarding the right of a Public Prosecutor to file an application, under S. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), in respect of a complaint, filed by a private party, and which was being prosecuted by him as such.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are, briefly, as follows. Harneck Singh lodged a complaint at the Police Station, Phul, on October 15, 1964, at about 10-40 p. m., that while coming out of a picture house, along with Surjit Singh, first respondent herein, his foot accidentally struck against a third party, Avtar Singh, who was also coming out of the picture house along with Raj Pal, the second respondent. According to the complaint Avtar Singh and the second respondent picked up a quarrel with Harneck Singh, but they were pacified and separated by the Manager of the cinema who intervened. It is also alleged that when later, Harneck Singh and the first respondent were near the Civil Hospital, Phul, the second respondent fired a shot at Harnek Singh. The Police appears to have investigated this complaint and took the view that the second respondent had not participated in the occurrence and that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. But, before the police actually filed a complaint before the Magistrate against Avtar Singh alone, the first respondent instituted a complaint before the Magistrate under Sections 307, 504 and 323 read with S. 34, I. P. C., against both Avtar Singh and the second respondent. The Magistrate, after holding a preliminary enquiry, issued summons to both the accused.
3. On January 8, 1965, the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, Sri Harbans Singh, filed an application, in his capacity as Public Prosecutor, before the trial Magistrate, under S. 494 of the Code for permission to withdraw from the prosecution of the case and for discharging the second respondent. According to that officer, the second respondent was innocent and had been falsely involved, in the case by the complainant and that this fact had come to his knowledge during the investigation.
4. The said application was opposed by the first respondent on two grounds : (i) that Shri Harbans Singh, Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, did not exercise the powers of a Public Prosecutor and therefore, that he had no locus standi to file the application; and (ii) that the application was not bona fide. In consequence, the second respondent prayed that permission should not be granted for withdrawal.
5. The trial Magistrate, by his order, dated February 8, 1965, overruled the objections raised by the first respondent and held that the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police was the Public Prosecutor for the entire district of Bhatinda, within whose jurisdiction the Magistrate s Court at Phul was situated, and that the application was bona fide. In consequence, the Magistrate s gave permission for the withdrawal of the case as against the second respondent, who was one of the two accused.
6. This order was challenged by the first respondent, in revision, before the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala. Apart from contending, that the officer, who presented the application under S. 494 of the Code, for withdrawal, was not a Public Prosecutor, the first respondent urged a slightly new ground of attack. That ground of attack was that, even assuming that the said Officer was a Public Prosecutor, nevertheless, he could not file an application under S. 494 of the Code, inasmuch as the Public Prosecutor was not in charge of the prosecution, which was being conducted by the complainant, a private party. The learned Sessions Judge held that the Officer, who filed the application under S. 494 of the Code, had been appointed as Public Prosecutor for the Magistrate s Court at Phul, by the Government. The Sessions Judge also held that the said Public Prosecutor could
