Withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be initiated by the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor with the court's consent; an informant cannot independently withdraw prosecution for non-compoundable offences.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the FIR as also the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda, in connection with Maharma P.S. Case No. 198 of 2019, whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda on the basis of the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner by the police upon completion of the investigation of the case for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Though a lawyer has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the informant took dowry at the time of marriage by the informant of Rs.3,70,000/- and subsequent to the marriage also demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and because of non- fulfilment of the dowry demand harassed the informant by causing hurt to her, by assaulting her, intentionally insulted her to provoke her to commit breach of peace and other offences, committed theft of the articles of the informant and also committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the property entrusted to the petitioner.

5. Basing upon the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Maharma P.S. Case No. 198 of 2019 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation police found all the allegations made against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda and basing upon the same, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is delay in registration of the FIR. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the parties have settled their dispute and, in this regard, a petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the informant on 24.06.2020, the same was kept in the record but even then, the cognizance order was passed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and drawing attention of this Court to Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submits that under the said provision of law, the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, may with the consent of the Court at any time before the judgment pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution but certainly, the informant is not entitled to file a petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, so admittedly, the petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure having not been filed either by the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has not committed any error by not passing any order on such application; as the application was not commensurate with the requirement