The ultimate guiding consideration for withdrawal from prosecution must be the interest of administration of justice, and the Public Prosecutor must apply independent judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

1. Present revision has been filed by the State under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge/M.P./M.L.A./ VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli on an application filed by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution in Criminal Case No.573 of 2012: State vs. Mayankeswar Saran Singh and others arising out of Crime No.158 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 436, 397, 395, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, (for short 'Gangsters Act') Police Station Mohanganj, District Raebareli.

2. Learned trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that charge has not yet been framed inasmuch as the accused has not remained present before the Court. The case has remained pending since 2007. Application for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was moved in the year 2012/2019. However, Public Prosecutor in application had not stated any fact on the basis of which it would be evident that withdrawal from prosecution would be in larger public interest. Public Prosecutor has only mentioned in the application that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to support the charge. Prosecution case is weak and, therefore, in public interest, permission be granted for withdrawal from prosecution. It has been observed that on the basis of present case, provisions of Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act were invoked against the accused Mayankeswar Saran Singh. District Magistrate gives permission for invoking the provisions under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act only where there is sufficient evidence against the accused for his prosecution. Learned Magistrate therefore, held that stand of the prosecution itself is contradictory.

3. It has been further observed that Public Prosecutor has not applied his judicial mind properly at the time of filing of the application. Accused, Mayankeswar Saran Singh was a sitting M.L.A. and State Minister in the Cabinet of the State Government. It has been said that despite him holding a constitutional post, he along with 20-25 people sprinkled petrol on the house of the complainant and set it on fire. Withdrawal from prosecution in such a case would not be in public interest, and if such a case is allowed to be withdrawn, wrong massage would be sent in public and it would not be in the public interest.

4. The facts of the case are that the election for U.P. Legislative Assembly 2007, respondent No.2- Mayankeswar Saran Singh, who was sitting M.L.A. from Tiloi Constituency in Raebareli was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and Dinesh Pratap Singh was the candidate of Bahujan Samajwadi Party in the said State Assembly Election. The complainant (respondent No.14) was supporter of Mr.Dinesh Pratap Singh, candidate of Bahujan Samajwadi Party. He was earlier a supporter of the accused, Mayankeswar Saran Singh.

5. During course of said election for U.P. Legislature Assembly Election 2007, an FIR came to be registered on a complaint of respondent No.14 alleging that on 03.05.2007 at around 10:00 P.M., when the complainant was sitting outside his house at that time, respondent No.2 along with his 20-25 supporters came from 4 vehicles. They started abusing him. Accused Maynkeswar Saran Singh exhorted others to kill the complainant as he had opposed him in the election. He also exhorted his supporters to take out petrol from the vehicles and set the house of the complainant on fire. On this exhortation, Ashok Singh, Krishna Kumar Soni, Manoj Singh, Narsingh, Kunj Bihari Singh, Lallan Singh and 8-9 persons, who came along with him took out petrol from their vehicles and ran towards the complainant. The complainant went inside his house and closed the door from inside. Persons came with accused-Mayankeswar Saran Singh tried to break open the house, and when they were not successful, they sprinkled petrol and set the door of the house on fire. It was