IMPORTANT POINT
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Sri Rajarshi Gupta assisted by Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsels on behalf of opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

Prayer

2. The instant revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 6.9.2011 passed by Ld. ACJM IV th, Meerut in Case No. 3901 of 2010 u/s 307 IPC, PS Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs. Sanjai Bansal & other) whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the withdrawal application dated 7.5.2010 moved by the Ld. Assistant Prosecuting Officer thereby consenting withdrawal from the prosecution of accused-opposite party nos. 2 &3 in aforesaid criminal case u/s 321 Cr.P.C.

It is also prayed to consequently direct the learned Magistrate to expeditiously proceed with the trial of the aforesaid case against the accused persons and conclude the same within a period of time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit & proper to direct, otherwise the revisionists shall suffer irreparable loss.

And by way of interim measure, it is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation & effect of impugned order dated 6.9.2011 passed by Ld. ACJM IV th, Meerut in Case No. 3901 of 2010 u/s 307 IPC, PS Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs. Sanjai Bansal & other), during the pendency of this criminal revision before this Court.

Brief facts

3. It is the case of the revisionist that on 30.3.2006 at about 10:00 AM, the accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3 namely ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal’ along with one unidentified accused person had committed assault by firing upon the revisionist no. 2 as a result of which he received serious firearm injuries on his chest. He was immediately taken to nearby ‘Lokpriya Hospital’ where at he was admitted at around 10:30 AM and subsequently operated upon by the doctors. Revisionist no. 1 i.e. father of the injured-revisionist no. 2, since did not know them before as such he lodged FIR at 11:15 AM at PS Nauchandi in respect of aforesaid incident against 3 unknown accused persons. The said FIR was registered as Case Crime no. 147 of 2006 u/s 307 IPC and verbatim whereof is quoted here-under :-

4. Subsequently, when on 10.04.2006 for the first time, the injured-revisionist no. 2 was examined by the Investigating Officer (in short ‘the IO’) of the said case, he revealed the name of ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal (i.e. accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3) as the assailants who along with one unidentified accused person had assaulted him on the day of incident by firing upon him. It is thereafter that both of them became accused in the Case Crime No. 147 of 2006.

5. Both the accused took the plea of alibi before the IO and finally the IO submitted the final report no. 32 of 2006 on 20.10.2006 in the said case thereby exonerating the aforesaid accused persons from the case. When the said final report reached in the court of learned JM IIIrd, Meerut on 12.12.2006, a Criminal Misc. Case no. 1331/11 of 2006 in his court was registered for judicial disposal of said FR and learned Magistrate directed for issuance of notice to the informant-revisionist no. 2 for making protest.

6. Meanwhile, an order came to be passed on 16.03.2007 by a Division bench of this Court in a pending Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13182 of 2006 which had been filed by the informant-revisionist no. 2 before for seeking direction to the local police for proper & effective investigation of Case Crime no. 147 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC PS Nauchandi, District Meerut. In the said order, this Court had directed the informant-revisionist no. 1 to approach the court of learned Magistrate for making protest against the submission of FR in his case.

7. Informant-revisionist no. 2 appeared and filed his protest petition along with his affidavit on 04.04.2007 against the submission of the FR in the said case and through the petition, it was submitted by th