Withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. requires judicial consent, an independent assessment by the Public Prosecutor, and must serve the interests of public justice.

JUDGMENT :

BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 read with Section 360 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the State seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1473/2019 titled as "State of Rajasthan vs. Harlal" pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar, District Churu.

2. The facts in short are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, F.I.R. No. 17/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Churu for the offences under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 193 & 120-B of I.P.C., wherein the allegation was that accused - Harlal Singh submitted his nomination for election on the post of Member, Ward No. 16, Zila Parishad, Churu and along with nomination papers, he submitted mark-sheet and certificate of Class Xth passed and used them as genuine knowing well that same were forged. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused - Harlal. During pendency of criminal case, the State Government constituted a committee, which took a decision to withdraw criminal case pending against the accused, who is present MLA of Constituent Assembly of Churu. Therefore, the State has moved this application seeking permission under Section321 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General has submitted that though, charge-sheet in the instant case was filed against accused - Harlal Singh for the offences under Sections 420 , 467, 471, 120-B & 193 of I.P.C. but from the evidence produced on record, no sufficient material is available on record against him. He has argued that charges were also wrongly framed against him because there is no evidence on record to establish that accused fabricated documents in question in any manner.

4.1 Learned Advocate General has further submitted that in order to frame charge of Section 120-B of I.P.C., existence of two or more accused persons is necessary. But in the case in hand, charge-sheet has been filed only against accused - Harlal Singh, therefore, charge framed under Section 120-B of I.P.C. is defective.

4.2 Learned Advocate General has further submitted Section 193 of I.P.C. deals with offences relating to false evidence and separate procedure has been prescribed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of I.P.C. for prosecuting such offences and said procedure has not been followed in the case in hand because F.I.R. was got registered by a stranger person after about four years of commission of alleged offences.

4.3 Learned Advocate General has also argued that as per provisions of Section 146 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Election Officer/Public Servant is empowered to file the complaint but in the present case, complaint was filed by a private person which was not maintainable.

4.4 Learned Advocate General has also submitted that accused Harlal Singh had contested election of Member, Zila Parishad in the year 2015, the term of office of which expired in the year 2020. He has also contended that qualification of Class Xth passed has also now been removed. Thus, no ends of public justice would be met with proceeding with the prosecution.

4.5 Learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar , (2019) 3 SCC 318 to contend that cognizance of offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. on the basis of a private complaint is impermissible.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant through VC has submitted that accused - Harlal Singh had earlier filed a misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the F.I.R., which was withdrawn by him. He has also submitted that the revision petition filed by accused challenging cognizance of offences taken against him was dismissed and the revi