Withdrawal from prosecution must uphold justice and victims' rights; judicial scrutiny is essential.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 52/2014 have been challenged by the petitioner whereby the criminal prosecution was allowed to be withdrawn by the learned trial Court and the proceedings against the accused-respondents were dropped.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant criminal revision would be that on 23.12.2007, the respondents, in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the house of the petitioner-complainant, ransacked and vandalized the house as a result of which the entire belongings were destroyed. The fire was of such magnitude that all the household articles got damaged. An FIR bearing No. 460/2007 came to be lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh upon which, the investigation was conducted. The coloured photographs, site memo, the statements of the witnesses and other independent evidence prima facie made a foolproof case against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 435, 436, 454 & 379 IPC and accordingly, charge sheet got submitted against them. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and since the case was not exclusively triable by Court of Magistrate, the order of committal was passed and thus, the file was received by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh. On several occasions, adjournments were sought by the accused-respondents to argue on the point of charge. On 18.12.2015, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. along with a resolution issued by the Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan and thus, a prayer was made for withdrawal from the prosecution of accused-respondents. The learned trial judge kept the application for perusal and posted the matter for consideration on 08.01.2016. On 08.01.2016, the learned trial judge passed the order to the effect that since the State of Rajasthan has withdrawn the prosecution, thus, nothing survives in the trial and accordingly, directed to discharge the bail bonds of the accused-respondents and dropped the proceedings against them and consigned the file to the record as well. For ready reference, the order sheet dated 08.01.2016 is reproduced herein below:

“AdPP mifLFkr gSA eqyfteku e; odhy mifLFkr gSA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA ;g izdj.k jktLFkku ljdkj x`g ¼xzqi&10½ foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad ,Q 13¼46½ x`g&10@2015 t;iqj fnukad 28-9-15 okil y sfy;k x;k gSA pwafd izdj.k jkT; ljdkj }kjk okil ys fy;k x;k gS vr% izdj.k esa dk;Zokgh 'ks"k ugha jgrh gSA eqyŒ lHkh ds gktjh ckcr fu"ikfnr tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSA i=koyh esa dk;Zokgh 'ks"k ugha jgrh gS 'kqekj QSly gksdj okn rdehy nkf[ky nrj gksA

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused-respondents. Perused the record of the case, more particularly the application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor and the resolution taken by the Government of Rajasthan. Empowered with the power laid down under Section 397 CrPC, this Court examined the record of the proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 08.01.2016. The accused are duly represented by their counsel.

4. The foundation laid by the framers of the law very conspicuously ensured recognition and protection of the legal rights of every citizen including any other individual who is otherwise not a citizen. These rights are very much engraved