Devinder Kaur Sekhon vs Satish Kumar

J. S. Garg, J.

Dr. Devinder Kaur Sekhon and Baldev Singh proprietors of Jassal Medical Store, Mallout, have moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenged the order of acquittal recorded by Shri Nirmal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 1551991 which resulted on account of the application which was moved by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of withdrawal from the prosecution.

Briefly the allegations were that there were disturbances in Malout on 10101986 and as a consequence of firing two persons of one community Bishamber Dass and Jagan Nath were killed. Thereafter latter part of the day there was throwing of brickbats at Police Station, City Malout The damage was also caused to the electric installations and the building of the police station, Malout. A little later Satish Kumar and four others were apprehended inasmuch as they had caused damage to Lehri General Store, Jassal Medical Hall and a couple of vehicles were damaged retaliation and also caused injuries to some persons of the other community. A challan for offences under Sections 307/323/427/436/506/435/382/457/148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was presented against the aforesaid five respondents and charges were also framed on 1391989. Subsequently some evidence was also recorded.

On 4121990, the Additional Public Prosecutor who was in charge of the case moved an application under Section 321 Annexure P2, wherein. it was averred that the present occurrence occurred suddenly on account of provocation which came into being on account of deaths of certain persons of one community; that it was not a case of premeditation and that the withdrawal was in the interest of public peace, harmony and better relations amongst the various communities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Dhup Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1985(1) RCR 335 where a proposal to withdraw a case for offences under Sections 392, 353 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside because the plea that considerable evidence may not be forthcoming, was disliked. Here, attention has also been invited to S.B. Sharraf and another v. K.P. Singh and others, 1964(1) Crl LJ 65 wherein the personnel of the management had received injuries at the hands of mob of about 200 workers armed with lathis and the mob also created an atmosphere of terrorism and anarchy and the order of Magistrate permitting the withdrawal of the case was set aside.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar, etc. was also allegedly committed in respect of the two vehicles reference to above and there was a theft of a fountaub pen and a torch belonging to Mrs. Devinder Kaur Sekhon. There was also a charge of causing simple injuries to Smt. Harjinder Kaur wife of Shri Darshan Singh, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and as seen above, the main charge was under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as the premises of Jassal Medical Hall and Lehri General Store Malout were damaged on account of fire.

The learned counsel for the respondents has stressed that the proposal was received from the State Government Annexure P4 for withdrawal of the case. Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the application moved by Additional Public Prosecutor are reproduced as under

2) That the above noted case is the offshoot of sudden and provocative action of the unidentified persons causing deaths of certain persons of one community.

3) That occurrence suddenly took place there was no intention of the persons roped in this case to resort to the present (sic) claim was there was no prior meditation.

4) That I have applied my mind and have also gone through the facts of the case and I am of the opinion that in the interest of peace, public harmony better relations amongst the various communities and in the interest of State the withdrawal of the prosecution case is essential."

This goes to show that the Additional Public Prosecutor who was conversant with the background as well as facts of the case did apply his mind and it was thereafter that the present application was moved. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Pritam Singh v. Jang Bahadur and others, 1991(3) RCR 526 wherein, it was observed that if the Public Prosecutor receives instructions from the State Government for withdrawal of a cast it could not be said that he was acting under extraneous influence.

Thus while summing up it may be mentioned that the occurrence is an old one and relates to 13101986 when the terrorism was at peak in Punjab. When an application was moved on 4121990 by the Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which contains good faith as well as a application of mind and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also considered the entire story of the prosecution and in para. No. 7 of his order dated 1551991 he was also satisfied that it was in the interest of Justice to allow withdrawal because it was for the purpose of creating public harmony between the two communities. The trial Court also noted that Dr. Devinder Kaur Sekhon whose property was damaged had also received compensation. The conclusion is that in the circumstances of the case no,, interference is called for and the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the complainant is hereby dismissed.