Ghanshyam vs State Of M. P. - 2006 Supreme(SC) 928

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 928

2006(7) Supreme 591
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Ghanshyam—Appellant
versus
State of M.P. & Ors.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1017 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Cr.) Nos. 185-186 of 2006)
Decided on 29-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jai Prakash Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3 : In-Person (Surya Prasad).

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 226 —Direction in writ petition by High Court to Superintendent of Police to register a case and take action in accordance with law—Writ petition was filed by respondent No. 3 complaining inaction on part of police against persons who caused injuries to respondent and his son—Appellant filed application for recalling of order and application was dismissed—Appeal—Grievance that respondent No. 3 after lapse of number of years filed writ petition and obtained order and that earlier prosecution against respondent No. 3 u/s 307/147 for injuries suffered by appellant was withdrawn by public prosecutor—Appellant’s revision against order of withdrawal of prosecution was dismissed by High Court—Appellant was unjustified in making grievance in respect of prosecution which had been withdrawn long time ago—Impugned order of High Court was based on report of DIG, CID who had conducted inquiry pursuant to direction by High Court in earlier writ petition—No infirmity in order passed by High Court.
       Held : According to the appellant, the High Court ought not to have passed any direction in the writ petition filed by respondent no. 3 because it was filed after undue delay. (Para 18)
       The appellant urged that the High Court did not consider the incident which had taken place in the year 1986 in the proper perspective. He also contended that respondent no.3 himself was involved in a case emanating from the FIR No. 654 of 1986 under Section 307 I.P.C. registered against the respondent. In the backdrop of the case, according to the appellant, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable.(Para 19)
       It would be appropriate to mention at this juncture that the Additional Sessions Judge permitted withdrawal of the prosecution on an application moved by the Public Prosecutor under section 321 Cr.P.C. The appellant had moved a criminal revision petition before the High Court. The order of the High Court was passed in the year 1991 and the appellant never challenged that order in the last 15 years before this Court. Therefore, the appellant is wholly unjustified in making any grievance in respect of the prosecution which had already been withdrawn against the respondent no.3 a long time ago and the said order was affirmed by the High Court and no proceedings were taken against the said judgment of the High Court. (Para 20)
       It may be pertinent to mention that the order of the High Court was primarily based on the report of the DIG, CID, Gwalior who had conducted the inquiry at the instance of the Court and submitted the report. On the basis of the inquiry report, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to take action for registration of the case and conduct the investigation and inquiry in accordance with law. (Para 21)
       We have carefully examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We do not find any infirmity in the order dated 8.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2004 and the order dated 23.9.2005 in MCC No. 473 of 2005 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench of Gwalior.(Para 22)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 321—Withdrawal of prosecution—Public Prosecutor at any stage before the judgment, could move the Court for withdrawal of prosecution—Discretion to withdrawn from prosecution is that of Public Prosecutor and none else.
       Held : The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the Public Prosecutor and none else, and so, he cannot surrender that discretion to any one. The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but on other relevant factors as well in order to further the broad ends of justice, public order, peace and tranquility.(Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.1356 of 2004 by the M.P. High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior, M.P.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

A writ petition was filed by respondent no.3 Surya Prasad son of Hariram, aged about 82 years, in which he had complained about the inaction on the part of the police authorities of the police station, Morar in not registering his complaint and taking action against the persons who had caused injuries to him and his sons. It was stated in the writ petition that on 8.11.1986, respondent no.3 and his sons were attacked. They sustained injuries and thereafter respondent no.3 was medically examined. In spite of filing the complaint, the police authorities of the Morar police station neither registered any case nor took any action against the accused but in fact the police people protected the accused persons. In the writ petition, he had prayed that justice be done to him and the accused be punished.

4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, issued notice in the writ petition and directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal to appoint a senior officer from the Police Headquarter to conduct an enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Department, Gwalior (for short "DIG, CID") conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. Respondent no.3 herein (petitioner in the writ petition) submitted an objection indicating that instead of getting the matter inquired from the Police Headquarter, the respondents improperly had got the investigation carried out from the local police officer. The learned Single Judge held that once it was established that respondent no.3 had sustained injuries in the incident and injuries on his person were confirmed on the medical examination, the police authorities of the Morar police station ought to have registered a case and taken appropriate steps in accordance with law. On the basis of the final report of the inquiry, the learned Single Judge directed the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to register a case in the Police Station of competent jurisdiction and take action in accordance with law.

5. The appellant had filed an application bearing M.C.C. No.473 of 2005 for recalling of an order dated 08.8.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition no.1356 of 2004 whereby respondent no.2, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, M.P. was directed to register a case and conduct investigation. After hearing the appellant, the learned Single Judge arrived at definite finding that there was no ground to recall the order and dismissed the petition.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.8.2005 passed in the Writ Petition No.1356 of 2004 and the order dated 23.9.2005 passed in M.C.C. No.473 of 2005, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. According to the appellant, he was residing in the house situated at Company Bagh Road, Morar, Gwalior, as a tenant since the time of the grandfather of respondent no.3. Now, the landlord of the house is respondent no.3. According to the appellant, respondent no.3 attempted to illegally evict the appellant from his rented house with the help of anti-social elements who came to his house armed with weapons on 8.11.1986. Respondent No. 3 along with his men started dismantling the house of the appellant without prior permission and/or notice to him. The appellant was seriously injured when he tried to obstruct them from dismantling the house. The appellant lodged an FIR No.654/86 under Section 147/307 IPC against respondent no.3 and his men. A charge-sheet was filed against respondent no.3 and his men under Section 147/307 IPC and then the trial commenced.

8. It may be pertinent to mention that after some time the Public Prosecut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document