SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Surendra Bir Singh Maurya And Others - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 691 OF 2012.
Decided On : 22-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Revisionists : R.H. Srivastava, Mamta Maurya, Subhas Kumar, Surendra Bir Maurya, V.P. Srivastava.
For the Opposite Parties :Govt. Advocate, Anand Prakash Pandey.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 321 - Withdrawal from prosecution - The application for withdrawal by Public Prosecutor dismissed by the trial court, holding that trial is ongoing and should not be prematurely halted - Independent satisfaction of Public Prosecutor required - Justifying withdrawal based on evidentiary concerns and public interest is essential. (Paras 16, 18, 29-30)

(B) Prosecution - The standard for a Court considering a withdrawal application is supervisory - The importance of ensuring that the integrity of judicial processes is maintained and public interest is served in granting or denying consent to withdrawal should prevail. (Paras 20-21, 26, 31)

Facts of the case:
The case arises from a complaint alleging attempted sexual assault, a counter FIR was lodged by the accused claiming harassment. The Public Prosecutor sought to withdraw prosecution based on doubts about the prosecution’s case, including the credibility of evidence and serious familial context.

Findings of Court:
The trial court’s dismissal of the withdrawal application was not justified, failing to address the grounds raised by the Public Prosecutor adequately.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the withdrawal application; if the Public Prosecutor had sufficient independent reasons for withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi: The revision was allowed due to the trial court’s failure to properly evaluate the reasons and circumstances presented for withdrawal, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of public interest and the nature and gravity of the allegations.

Result: Revision allowed; matter remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of withdrawal application.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on the dismissal of withdrawal application. (Para 6 , 7)
3. details on previous fir's and witness summoning issues. (Para 8 , 9)
4. discussion on trial conduct and withdrawal arguments. (Para 10 , 12 , 19)
5. reflections on public prosecutor's responsibilities. (Para 11 , 15 , 28)
6. principles on withdrawal under section 321 cr.p.c. (Para 16 , 17)
7. factors surrounding prosecution withdrawal decision. (Para 20 , 21 , 30)
8. observations on the implications of withdrawal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 27)
9. conclusion of the judgment. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

By means of instant Criminal Revision the revisionists who are accused Session Trial No.92 of 2003, (State v. Surenda Bir Singh and others) have assailed the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Allahabad, whereby the application of Public Prosecutor/Assistant DGC (Criminal) under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of prosecution has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that defacto complainant (X) wife of Shyam Babu Mishra filed an application before JMI Allahabad under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with averment that she lives in the house of accused Dr. R.R. Maurya as a tenant for last two years at Nawabganj, Allahabad, her husband is a police constable. Complainant was having good relationship with accused Dr. R.R. Maurya and his family, marriage of nephew of Dr.R.R.Maurya was solemnized six months ago, wherein the complainant spend Rs.25,000/- towards crackers and hiring of vehicles. On asking of accused Dr.R.R.Maurya, but after lapse of one month when she demanded the money spent by her, he stated that he will pay the money within one or two months. However, even after lapse of next two months, he did not pay the money and on making demand by the complainant he firstly adopted procrastinating attitude and subsequently the doctor and his family members had asked her to vacate the house otherwise they would implicate her husband and kill them. On 28.04.2001 Vikram Bahadur Singh the nephew of said Dr.R.R. Maurya trespassed into the house of the complainant and tried to commit rape on her, when she shouted to this, the other accused Dr. R.R. Maurya, Vikram Bahadur Singh, Surendra Bir Singh Maurya, Harendra Pratap Singh and his compounder Ramesh Kanaujiya barged into her portion of house, they dashed her on floor and attempted to commit rape on her. When her husband came back to home after his duties, he reached the spot accompanied by some other person who saw that accused persons were grabbing hold of the complainant. The accused persons left the place on arrival of husband of the victim and other witnesses, but they gave threat that they would implicate her husband in some false case and if she dares to report, they would kill her.

4. An FIR was registered at Police Station at P.S. Nawabganj, on the basis of order passed by learned Magistrate on the application under Section 156(3), at Police Station Nawabganj under Section 376 , 511, 506 of I.P.C. on 17.04.2002 at 19-20 hours against Vikram Bahadur Singh, Surendra Bir Singh Maurya, Dr. R.R. Maurya, Harendra Pratap Singh. The police investigated the case and recorded statement of the complainant and witnesses. The name of accused Vikram Bahadur Singh was dropped during investigation, as in the statement of witnesses it emerged that he was employee in Secretariat Lucknow, the said incident occurred on a working day and during that period session of Assembly was running from morning to 09:00 pm and he was residing in Lucknow at that time. The police submitted chargesheet against other accused persons named in the FIR namely Surendra Bir Singh Maurya, Dr. R.R.Maurya, Harendra Pratap Singh and Ramesh Kanaugiya for said charges. The matter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top