Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 1246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subhash Kakade, J.
Pushpa Dharwal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Misc. Cr. C. No. 17218 of 2013
Decided On : 15-05-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vikalp Soni
For the Respondent: R. S. Dubey
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicial and liberal approach in considering withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the role of the Public Prosecutor, the functions of the court, and the importance of advancing the cause of justice.
Headnote:
SECTION 321 - WITHDRAWAL OF PROSECUTION - [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 321] - The court discussed the principles and considerations for withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the role of the Public Prosecutor, the functions of the court, and the locus standi of the complainant. The court highlighted the need for the withdrawal to advance the cause of justice, the discretion of the Public Prosecutor, and the importance of a judicial and liberal approach in condoning delay. The judgment set aside the lower court's orders and directed the restoration of the criminal case for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order acquitting the respondent from charges under sections 341, 294, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that the lower courts' orders were erroneous and sought relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts' orders allowing the withdrawal of the case and dismissing the revision petition were erroneous and caused serious injustice to the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for a judicial and liberal approach in condoning delay and highlighted the importance of advancing the cause of justice in considering withdrawal of prosecution.
Issues: The issues involved the erroneous orders of the lower courts, the grounds for withdrawal of prosecution under section 321, and the need for a judicial and liberal approach in condoning delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles and considerations for withdrawal of prosecution under section 321, emphasizing the role of the Public Prosecutor, the functions of the court, and the locus standi of the complainant. The court highlighted the need for the withdrawal to advance the cause of justice, the discretion of the Public Prosecutor, and the importance of a judicial and liberal approach in condoning delay.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the lower courts' orders were set aside. The criminal case was directed to be restored for further proceedings, and the parties were directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance and necessary action.
ORDER :
This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' has been filed by the petitioners invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2012, passed in Criminal Revision No. UR/2012, by the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, arising out of order dated 19-11-2011, passed in Criminal Case No. 18749/2008, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, whereby the application preferred by A.D.P.O. (the prosecutor) under section 321 of the Code has been allowed and the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted from the charges punishable under sections 341, 294 and 323, Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner No. 2 Ku. Parbeen lodged an FIR at Police Station Cantt, Jabalpur against the respondent No. 2 Ravindra Singh stating that on 25-10-2008 at about 11.45 a.m. the respondent No. 2 has committed Marpeet with her and her family members the petitioner No. 1 Ku. Pushpa and the petitioner No. 3 Smt Thakri Devi and tried to disrobe to outrage her modesty. On the basis of said report the Police have registered a Crime No. 377/2008, for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294 and 323, Indian Penal Code.
3. Admittedly, with regard to this incident counter FIR has also been lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. On the basis of the said report the Police have registered the Crime No. 378/2008, for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294, 506, 323 and 34, Indian Penal Code. After investigation, both the parties were charge-sheeted before the competent Court and after framing the charge, trial of these cross cases has been commenced and both the cases have been fixed for evidence before learned trial Court for 30-11-2011.
4. In between, on dated 19-11-2001 an application under section 321 of the Code has been moved by the A.D.P.O. who was prosecuting the case on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State before learned trial Court seeking permission to withdraw the Criminal Case No. 18749/2008, pending against the respondent No. 2. Learned trial Court allowed this application on the same day and acquitted the respondent No. 2.
5. The petitioners have preferred a revision against the aforesaid order dated 19-11-2011 along with an application for condonation of delay of 10 months 20 days. The learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision on the ground of delay as well as non-maintainability vide order dated 17-12-2012, hence, the petitioners before this Court.
6. Shri Vikalp Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed by the Courts below are erroneous, perverse and bad in the eyes of law. There was sufficient material against the respondent No. 2 to register the crime for the offence punishable under section 354, Indian Penal Code but the Police intentionally not registered the same because the respondent No. 2 is a Police Head Constable. Learned trial Court have failed to appreciate that the permission sought by the A.D.P.O. to withdraw the case should not be granted because the cross case regarding the same incident was still pending. The learned Revisional Court erred in holding that the revision filed by the petitioners is not maintainable because there is a provision of appeal against acquittal. It is also pointed out that learned Revisional Court has erred in dismissing the revision on the ground of delay because the delay caused in filing the revision was bona fide and not intentional. Learned counsel concludes his arguments submitting that permission of withdrawal of case can be granted only in the interest of justice and for valid reasons. It may be granted in a case which is likely to end in acquittal and continuance of case will cause severe harassment to the accused.
7. Shri R. S. Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer justified and supported the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
8. None present on behalf of the respondent No.
