Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 56775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ON THE 11th OF JANUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4114 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SITAMAU, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - PP) AND 1. BHUPENDRA PARIHAR S/O SHRI GOPAL PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, CLUB GALI SITAMAU (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. DILIP S/O SHRI FAKIRCHANDRA DARKUNIA JATI DHOBI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MARKET GALI SHEETMAU DIST MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. DEVENDRA S/O SHRI PRADEEP JOSHI CAST BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, AZAD CHOWK SITAMAU DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. GANESH S/O SHRI KANIRAM VERMA ,CAST GAYRI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. ROHIT S/O SHRI RAMEHSCHANDRA JOSHI CAST BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 6. LALIT S/O SHRI BAIRAGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 7. SHUBHAM S/O SHRI RAJENDRA PORWAL, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 8. LALA@SANJAY S/O SHRI MANGILAL JAT, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 9. VIBHAV JAIN S/O SHRI KISHOR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH) 10. DIGVIJAY SINGH S/O SHIR PRAVEEN SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU (MADHYA PRADESH) 11. JITENDRA S/O SHRI AMBALAL RATHOR CAST TELI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SHANIT COLONY DALODA (MADHYA PRADESH) 12. NITESH S/O RAUMAL GAUD, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 13. AKASH S/O SHRI SANJAY KUMAR PATIYA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 14. PRAVEEN S/O SHRI RMESHCHANDRA MALI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 15. UMESH @ ABHISHEK S/O SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA MALI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 16. RAHUL @ DAYASHANKAR S/O SHRI BHUWANISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 17. VIKKI @ HEMANT S/O SHRI JEEVANLAL GOSAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SITAMAU THANA SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 18. SATYANARAYAN @ SATU S/O SHRI GOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SITAMU THAN SITAMAU DISTT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI AVINASH SIRPURKAR - SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHONE SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE FOR ALL RESPONDENTS EXCEPT RESPONDENT NO.17 WHO HAS NOT BEEN SERVED). CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2664 of 2022 BETWEEN:- 1. GANESH S/O SHRI KANIRAM JI VERMA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER BEHIND SHRI RAM SCHOOL SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR POLICE STATION SITAMAU MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. JITENDRA S/O SHRI AMBALAL JI RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SHANTI COLONY, DALODA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AVINASH SIRPURKAR - SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHONE SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SITAMAU DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - P.P.) This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Bablu Patel,Advocate General
ORDER
The present revisions are filed u/S.397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Since the impugned order in both the cases is same, therefore, both the revisions are heard finally simultaneously.
2. The facts of the case are that on 14.3.2022 a letter was sent by Deputy Director, Prosecution, district Mandsaur to the public prosecutor, District Mandsaur in context with the letter by District Magistrate, Mandsaur and Public Prosecutor, district Mandsaur to file an application u/S.321 of Cr.P.C before the learned trial court without delay for withdrawal of case against the petitioners and other accused persons. On the basis of letter dated 14.3.2022 in compliance of the said letter the public prosecutor filed an application u/S.321 Cr.P.C in which he prayed for withdrawal of ST No.112/2021 vide Crime No.354/2019 registered at P.S. Sitamau, district Mandsaur. The said application was decided on 12.5.2022 by which learned trial court dismissed the application filed u/S.321 of Cr.P.C filed byn the prosecution.
3. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the application filed by the prosecution u/S.321 of Cr.P.C, it is evident that no reason has been assigned for withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused persons. As per the provisions of Sec.321 of Cr.P.C, the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor incharge of a case may, with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution. Upon perusal of the record and the application, no reason has been assigned for withdrawal of the prosecution. The law in this regard is established by the apex Court in the case of Rahul Agrawal Vs. Rakesh Jain AIR 2005 SC 910 wherein it is held that withdrawal of the prosecution by the public prosecutor cannot act on the dictates of the State government. He has to act objectively as he is also an officer of the court. Besides, the court are also free to assess whether prima facie case is made out or not. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Shukla Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 413 and also judgment passed in the case of Rahul Agrawal Vs. Rakesh Jain AIR 2005 SC 910. The prosecution has not assigned any reason for withdrawal of the prosecution and only on the basis of the order passed by Director General of Prosecution, Bhopal withdrawn from the prosecution of the accused persons.
4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
5. The revisions are dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM JUDGE VM
