JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-state and the accused-petitioners under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, No.4, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Regular Case No. 01/2021 whereby the application moved by the public prosecutor for withdrawal of prosecution against the respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 321 CrPC was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Ram Sharan Singh filed a complaint regarding private agricultural land and a Preliminary Enquiry No. PE-15/2014 was registered by the ACB on 26.03.2014. Then, an FIR bearing No. 422/2014 came to be filed at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur under Sections 109 , 420, 457, 471 and 120-B of IPC and section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A charge sheet was eventually filed on 26.11.2015 in the case against the accused Nishkam Diwakar and against one Shailendra Garg while investigation was ongoing under Section 173(8) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE against G.S. Sandhu, Omkar Mal Saini and three other individuals. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 08.05.2016 stating that while the investigation against accused Shanti Dhariwal and N.L. Meena is still underway under Section 173(8) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , offences were made out against accused G.S. Sandhu and Omkar Mal Saini and two other individuals named Vijay Mehta and Anil Kumar Agarwal. Thereafter, co-accused N.L. Meena and Shanti Dhariwal were the subject of a second supplementary report which was submitted on 12.06.2019 which was followed by a closure report filed against them while the investigation was kept pending against co-accused Lalit Panwar. The accused G.S. Sandhu and Nishkam Diwakar made a representation to the State stating that prosecution against them should be dropped under Section 321 CrPC in view of the subsequent and final conclusions reached by the Investigating Agency. The representation was examined by the UDH department and the department recorded the following findings on 19.08.2019:

i) The allotment letter was in favour of Ganpati Construction it was eligible for membership of the society even in accordance with the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act.

ii) The land was mutated in favour of JDA under Section 90 B (1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, therefore, there was no other option left with the JDA but to regularise/allot the land in the person interested because as per the prevailing rule, the land cannot be used for Government or any other purpose.

iii) Neither the state government nor the