IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 208 of 2026 Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 Sunita Devi and another ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram o Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainth la, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner u: M/s Munish Kumar and Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocates.

For the respondent : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional No.1/State Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which an application filed by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) seeking withdrawal from the prosecution was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police filed a charge shee.t before the learned trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under section 323, 353, 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), asserting that the informant Om Prakash was posted as a Process server in the office of Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur. H.P. He was discharging his duties at the village Barmana on 18.09.2021 at about 5:30 p.m.. He was to serve notices/summons upon the accused, Mathala Kranthi Kumar, in a Civil Suit titled Sushil Kumar versus Dharti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. He told the accused Kranthi Kumar about the summons, but he refused to receive the summons. The accused Sunita Devi pushed the informant inside the house Hand detained him in the house. The accused threatened and insulted the informant. He was released only with the assistance of the police. Hence, a charge sheet was filed before the Court to take action against the accused as per the law.

3. Subsequently, the matter was compromised between the parties and an application seeking withdrawal was filed before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners/accused have filed .the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by refusing the withdrawal. The jurisdiction is vested with the Public Prosecutor and not with the Court to decide the reason for the withdrawal. The learned Trial Court made premature observations on the merits of the case. The relationship between the parties and the nature of the offence were ignored. The continuation of the prosecution is causing harm to petitioner No.2; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. I have heard M/s Munish Kumar and Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

6. Mr Munish Kumar,learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in refusing permission to the learned Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor applied his mind, concluded that continuation of the proceedings would disrupt peace and harmony in the society, and dPecided to withdraw from the prosecution. Learned Trial Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trialo Court be set aside. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:

 Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben 2024 INSC 96;

 Geo rge Alexander @ Prince vs. State of Karala 2025:

KER:43501; and  Swami Chinmayanand vs Saraswati vs. State of U.P. &

Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s)

10004/2022.

7. Mr Jitender Sharma learned Additional Advocate Gheneral for respondent No. 1/State submitted t