Back
2000 Supreme(Mad) 411
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. BAKTHAVATSALU
Durai Murugan And Others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Cri. R.C. Nos. 1245 of 1998, 1290, 1291 and Cri. M.P. Nos. 9486, 9879, 9880
Decided On : 10 April 2000
The Public Prosecutor has the power to withdraw a case at any stage before judgment, and the court's role is supervisory, not adjudicatory, with the paramount consideration being the interest of the administration of justice.
Headnote:
Withdrawal of Prosecution - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 321 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two separate incidents during an election campaign, resulting in charges against members of different political parties. The Public Prosecutor sought to withdraw the cases citing delay, witness hostility, and changed political climate.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court declined to give consent for withdrawal, citing lack of grounds and delay caused by the accused. The High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion and allowed the withdrawal of both cases, acquitting the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Public Prosecutor's grounds for withdrawal were valid and whether the trial court properly considered the scope of Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor has the power to withdraw a case at any stage before judgment, and the court's role is supervisory, not adjudicatory. The paramount consideration must be the interest of the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the withdrawal of both cases and acquitted the accused under Section 321 sub-section (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
These revisions are filed against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore in Cri. M.P. No. 2827/98 and 2828/98. The accused in C.C. No. 107/91 have filed Cri. R.C. No. 1245/98. The State has filed Cri. R.C. 1290/98 and 1291/98 to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
(1) The cases relating to C.C. No. 107/91 and 171/94 and 108/91 were registered under Crime No. 37/91 and 38/91 on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, Latteri Police Station. The occurrence took place on 14-5-91 at about 7 and 7.30 p.m. The cases were registered as case and counter-case. The accused in C.C. No. 107/91 belonged to DMK party and the accused in C.C. No. 171/94 belonged to AIADMK party.
(2) On 14-5-91 at about 7 p.m., the AIADMK party men were playing songs from recorded music through loud speakers supporting their election campaign at the stage erected for public meeting near Latteri bus stand. At that time the accused who belonged to DMK party were campaigning in support of their candidate through loud speaker attached to an Auto-rickshaw. When the first accused started to address through loud speaker, AIADMK partymen did not stop playing recorded music and thereafter the other accused armed with stick and iron rods and bricks caused damage to the tubelights and loud speaker. The accused were charged under sections 147, 148, 427 read with 149, IPC and a case was taken on file as C.C. No. 107/91.
(3) On the same day at about 7.30 p.m., while DMK party candidate was campaigning in an autorickshaw, accused who belonged to AIADMK party increased the sound in their loud speaker. When the DMK partymen requested to reduce the sound, the first accused armed with knife and other accused armed with sticks and bricks attacked and intimidated the DMK party candidate and others and in that transaction injuries were caused to some of the witnesses and they also caused damage to thaneer pandhal. Therefore, the accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 435 and 506 Part (2) read with 149, IPC and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 108/91.
(4) It is seen from the admitted facts that the case in C.C. 108/91 filed against AIADMK partymen was ordered to be withdrawn. Accused in C.C. No. 107/91 filed Cri. R.C. 141/92 before this Court on the ground that the cases are case and counter and that prejudice would be caused to the accused in 107/91 if the prosecution is allowed to withdraw the counter case in C.C. 108/91 alone. The Court allowed the said Cri. R.C. by order dated 11-8-94 and as per the orders of this Court, the case was remitted to the Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore, and the case was renumbered as C.C. 171/94.
3. On 13-10-1993, the prosecution filed petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C. in Cri. M.P. 2827/98 and 2828/98 for withdrawal of both cases. The trial Court on consideration of material declined to accord consent for withdrawing the cases. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the revision is filed by both State and accused in one case. The accused in both cases are impleaded as respondents in Cri. R.C. filed by the State.
4. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is challenged by both accused and Public Prosecutor on several grounds. Before proceeding further to decide the merits of the case, it would be relevant to ascertain the reasons stated by the Public Prosecutor in the withdrawal memo. The above withdrawal memo was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vellore on 13-10-1998. The averments contained in the above memo are as follows :
(1) The above 2 cases are pending for over 7 years and there wont be any useful process served in conducting the prosecution in the above 2 cases.
(ii) Further many of the prosecution witnesses in C.C. No. 107/91 who are accused in C.C. 171/94 have crossed over to other political parties and almost all the witnesses have also turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecu
