SHORT NOTE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
R.K. Bag, J.
Raju Mohandas Mahtaney —Petitioner
versus
Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Opp.Parties
C.R.R. No.4245 of 2013
Decided on 4.6.2014

IMPORTANT POINT:
It is the privilege of the complainant to withdraw the complaint against all or any of the accused persons and the learned Magistrate has the discretion to permit the complainant to withdraw the same and if the complaint is withdrawn, the result will be acquittal of the accused persons.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 257—During proceeding in the prosecution for offence, complainant moved application to withdraw prosecution against petitioner accused who had been impleaded as accused No.4— Magistrate allowed application—In revision filed by other accused person order was set aside by Sessions Court on ground that complainant could not be permitted to withdraw complaint in piece meal manner—Whether Sessions Court was justified in its view? No.

       Held: On perusal of the provisions of Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is crystal clear that it is the privilege of the complainant to withdraw the complaint against all or any of the accused persons and the learned Magistrate has the discretion to permit the complainant to withdraw the same and if the complaint is withdrawn, the result will be acquittal of the accused persons. Since the present petitioner being the accused No.4 in the petition of complaint is not the Managing Director of the company and since the specific averments are not made in the petition of complaint about the involvement’ of the petitioner in the transaction of issuance of the cheque in question and since the dispute between the present petitioner and the complainant was settled amicably out of court, I am of the opinion that learned Magistrate rightly exercised his jurisdiction by permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint against the present petitioner under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reasons furnished by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, for setting aside the order of learned Magistrate cannot be accepted on the ground that it is the prerogative of the complainant to proceed or withdraw against a particular accused person even when the liabilities joint and several under the law.

       In view of my above findings, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16th July, 2013 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2013 is set aside. (Paras 8 & 9)

       Result: Revision allowed.