Important pointWithdrawal of prosecution can be ­allowed only in the interest of justice and discretion is to be exercised carefully by the Court having regard to the all relevant facts and shall not be exercised to stifle the prosecution.

Judgment

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby he allowed the withdrawal of a case pending against the first respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant herein is the de facto complainant in the police-charged case. The appellant’s case is that he purchased an extent of 1.30 acres of land in 1987 in the name of his mother, Lacchu Nal. The first respondent and one Dinesh Chaudhary had settled rights over this property and they, according to the appellant, manipulated certain village records. Appellant’s father filed a civil suit through the appellant, who was a power of attorney holder. An order of injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit and the same was confirmed by the Additional District Judge. The appellant further contended that the first respondent and Dinesh Chaudhary along with 20-25 persons came to the suit property and removed a shed constructed there and caused damage to the boundary wall. It was also alleged that in ­December 1992, the first res­pondent and his friend Dinesh Chaudhary assaulted the appellant and held a revol­ver against the chest of the appellant and threatened him. The ­appellant filed a complaint and on that basis a case was regis­tered. After investigation, the police filed a final report alleging the commission of offences under Section 341, 294 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal­ Code.

2. On the appellant’s side, five witnesses were examined and the case was posted for examination of the accused. Then the Assis­tant Public Prosecutor moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution. The Magistrate dismissed that application and a revision was filed by the first respondent. The Additional Ses­sions Judge dismissed the revision whereupon the first respondent moved the High Court and by the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution.

3. We heard the appellant’s learned ­counsel and the learned counsel for the respondents.­

4. Not many reasons are given in the impugned order as to why the court allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only stated that looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, permission should have been granted for withdrawal as the petitioner therein had been har­assed mentally and suffered continuously for seven years during the trial. The fact that the trial was not over and the case was posted for the examination of the accused was not noticed by the High Court. In the application filed by the Public Prosecutor, the only reason given for withdrawal of the prosecution was that the accused was not a habitual criminal and, therefore, the prosecution must be withdrawn.

5. The order passed by the High Court permitting the withdrawal of the prosecution is not legally sustainable. The reasons given in the impugned order are either irrelevant or incorrect. The learned Single Judge did not verify the facts and also did not make any inquiry as to why the case was pending for over seven years. It may be noticed that after the appellant filed the complaint, police took about three years to file a final report. Though the appellant had been cooperating with the completion of the prosecution, the case was being adjourned from time to time and ultimately when the prosecution evidence was about to be over at any point of time, the withdrawal of the prosecution at the instance of the Public Prosecutor had been rightly rejected by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court and the High Court should not have interfered with such an Order. The law regarding withdrawal of prosecution has been explained in detail in a series of decisions rendered by this Court.

6. In State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389, this Court held:—

“.....The function of the court, therefore, in granting its con­