Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Chattar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. – Respondents
C-482 No.880 of 2016
Decided On : 28-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Ms. Meenakshi Parihar
For the State : Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that withdrawal of prosecution can only be allowed in the interest of justice, and the public prosecutor must act objectively as an officer of the court, independent of the State Government's dictates.
Headnote:
Withdrawal of Prosecution - Criminal Law - Section 321 of Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 321 of Cr.P.C., Rahul Agarwal vs. Rakesh Jain (AIR 2005 Supreme Court 910), S.K. Shukla vs. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 413) - The judgment discusses the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. and emphasizes that withdrawal can only be allowed in the interest of justice. It highlights the need for the court to consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether the withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice. The judgment also emphasizes that the public prosecutor cannot act on the dictate of the State Government and must act objectively as an officer of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and a member of Zila Panchayat were kidnapped and taken to an isolated place. The State Government issued orders to withdraw the criminal cases against the accused, who were allegedly politically influential. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the withdrawal, stating that there was no gravity of the offence as both parties belonged to different political parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the withdrawal of the cases against the accused was against public interest and would give wrong signals to society. The learned Sessions Judge's decision to allow the withdrawal was set aside, and the accused were ordered to face trial for the offences charged.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the withdrawal of criminal cases against politically influential accused and the discretion of the court in permitting such withdrawals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that withdrawal of prosecution can only be allowed in the interest of justice and highlighted the need for the court to consider all relevant circumstances. It also underscored that the public prosecutor cannot act on the dictate of the State Government and must act objectively as an officer of the court.
Final Decision: The order allowing the withdrawal of the cases against the accused was set aside, and the accused were ordered to face trial for the offences charged.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This petition is instituted for setting aside the Government Orders dated 08.07.2015 and 10.08.2015 passed by the Government of Uttarakhand and also to set aside order dated 06.06.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge in revision petitions no.31 of 2015 and no.15 of 2015.
2. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition, are that the petitioner had gone to Shiva Resort with his wife, member of Zila Panchayat, on 16.01.2013. By-election for the Zila Panchayat, District Bijnor was scheduled for 21.01.2013. On 17/18.01.2013 at around 02:30 AM, when the petitioner was at the Resort, a mob came at the spot. The panchayat members along with the petitioner were pushed into the waiting cars and kidnapped and taken to an isolated place without their consent. F.I.R. dated 18.01.2013 was registered under Sections 452, 365, 342, 504, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC. Charge sheet was filed on 26.05.2014. Supplementary charge sheet was also filed on 07.02.2015. On 07.06.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in criminal case no. 445 of 2014, has taken the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued. However, the accused did not appear before the court. Thereafter, on 25.04.2015, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the accused in criminal case no.230 of 2015. Both the cases, i.e., criminal case no.445 of 2014 and criminal case no.230 of 2015 were clubbed together. The fact of the matter is that the State Government vide G.O. No.183/XX-3/08(2014) dated 08.07.2015 issued directions for withdrawing the case titled as “State vs. Amit Chauhan”. Copy of the G.O. is Annexure-5. Thereafter, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application to withdraw the case instituted against accused Amit Chauhan.
3. According to the averments made in the petition, the accused is a son of the Minister of U.P. The withdrawal application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, on 12.08.2015. Thereafter, the State Government issued another Government Order being No.713/XX-3-2015-08(104)2014 dated 10.08.2015 to withdraw the crime no.2 of 2013 against the accused persons in public interest, modifying the earlier Government Order dated 08.07.2015. Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application being no.35-B to withdraw the case against the accused in criminal case no.445 of 2014. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 21.09.2015, rejected the said application. Thereafter, the learned District Government Counsel moved a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. Vide order dated 06.06.2016, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision. It would be relevant at this stage to mention that the learned Sessions Judge had issued notice to the S.H.O. Police Station Laxmanjhula in the revision petition. The S.H.O. appeared before the court and filed his written submissions and opposed the withdrawal of the case against the accused. The copy of the written submissions is Annexure-13. The petitioner herein also has filed objections against the withdrawal of the case. However, his objections were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment dated 06.06.2016, while allowing the revision petition no.31/2015, has stated that there was no gravity of offence as both the parties were of the same place and belong to different political parties thus, the public interest at large would not be affected. He set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2015 and permitted the prosecution to withdraw the case no.445 of 2014, and in the revision petition no.15/2015, he set aside the summoning order dated 25.04.2015 passed in criminal case no.230 of 2015.
4. According to Section 321 of Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the case may, with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution o
