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

2018 Supreme(UK) 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
V.K. BIST, J.
Kishor Singh & another - Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2017 with Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2017
Decided On : 15-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionists :Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate.
For the State of Uttarakhand :Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Brief Holder.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of written permission from the State Government for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the prosecutor's discretion, application of mind, and the court's supervisory function in granting consent to withdrawal.

Headnote:

Withdrawal - Criminal Prosecution - Section 321 Cr.P.C. - 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 336, 341, 353, 395, 397, 412, 427, 435, 34, 120-B of I.P.C., Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the application of Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal from prosecution, emphasizing the requirement of written permission from the State Government. It cites the State of Uttar Pradesh's amendment to the provision and references key legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and others and Rajender Kumar Jain Vs. State, highlighting the prosecutor's discretion, application of mind, and the court's supervisory function.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved applications for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for two separate incidents of violence and arson. The prosecution was related to the murder of a local leader, resulting in public agitation, police confrontation, and charges against numerous individuals. The State Government granted permission to withdraw the cases, leading to the applications before the Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the applications for withdrawal were filed in good faith and in the interest of justice. It concluded that the alleged offences were not preplanned or intentional, but a result of sudden provocation and heat of passion. The Court held that the Public Prosecutor had applied his mind and exercised his executive function properly, and the trial Court erred in rejecting the applications.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the applications seeking withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The Court analyzed whether the applications were filed in good faith, in the interest of justice, and in accordance with the legal provisions, and whether the alleged offences warranted withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the requirement of written permission from the State Government for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. It cited key legal principles established by the Supreme Court, highlighting the prosecutor's discretion, application of mind, and the court's supervisory function in granting consent to withdrawal.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revisions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The applications seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution were allowed, and the revisionists/accused persons named in the charge-sheets were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

JUDGMENT :

V.K. Bist, J.

These Criminal Revisions are directed against the judgment and order 21.02.2017 & 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2009 “State Vs. Virendra Singh and others” & in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 2009 “State Vs. Hargovind Negi and others”, whereby the applications moved by the learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the said Court. Prayer has been made in Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2017 for acquitting the accused persons named in chargesheet no. 57 of 2009 pursuant to the F.I.R./Case Crime No. 47 of 2009, punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 336, 341, 353, 395, 397, 412, 427, 435, 34, 120-B of I.P.C., under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, P.S. Kaladhungi, District Nainital. In Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2017 prayer is made for acquitting the accused persons named in chargesheet no. 56 of 2009 pursuant to the F.I.R./Case Crime No. 48 of 2009, punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 396, 333, 332, 353, 336, 436, 427, 412, 34, 120-B of I.P.C., under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, P.S. Kaladhungi, District Nainital.

2. F.I.R. Nos. 47 of 2009 and 48 of 2009 were registered at Police Station Kaladhungi on 23.08.2009. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2009 at about 09:00 a.m., police received information that some people have blocked the highway near the village Chakluva in protest of the murder of Balwant Singh Kanyal, Block Pramukh. On this information, Harish Chandra Sati, C.O., Ramnagar, S.I. Sunder Singh Rawat and S.H.O., Ramnagar, reached at the place of occurrence along with police force, where about 500-600 people had assembled. They were being led by the accused/revisionists and other persons. These people were identified by the police. These people were armed with lathi, danda, sickle, axe, pistol and canes of petrol and kerosene oil. They were raising slogans against the police and were also abusing the police. Circle Officer tried to make them understand but they remained adamant and became violent. Carbine of Head Constable Kishore Tiwari was snatched. The mob attacked the police party in which many police personnel, including the complainant, received injuries. One Head Constable Pooran Lal was beaten by mob, who died on the spot. A bus of roadways was also set on fire by the mob. With these averments F.I.R. No. 47/2009 under Section 147, 148, 149, 397, 336, 427, 341, 332, 333 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of PPDP Act was lodged with P.S. Kaladhungi against 15 known persons and other unknown persons. Another F.I.R., being F.I.R. No. 48/2009, was also filed regarding the said incident against the accused persons. After registration of F.I.R., the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and he submitted the chargesheet. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on 14.10.2009 against the accused persons, including revisionists under Section 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 336, 427, 341, 353, 332, 333, 435, 34 & 120 B of I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of PPDP Act. The Investigating Officer also submitted the chargesheet in the connected case on 12.09.2009 against the accused persons, including revisionists under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 396, 333, 353, 336, 412/34, 436, 427, 332, 120 B of I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3 PPDP Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital took cognizance of the offence on the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and Session Trial no. 150 of 2009 and 152 of 2009 were registered against the accused persons. Durin































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