Ranbir Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—Ranbir Singh has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders Annexures P/1 and P/3 and for allowing the application filed u/s 321, Cr. P. C. in case of F.I.R. No. 637 dated 28-11-1988 registered at Police Station, Panipat.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 28-11-1988 the petitioner visited the Court of Shri T. C. Tanwar, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Panipat and filed an application for inspection of case file No. 6/1 of 1988 titled as Chand Ram v. Ranbir Singh. Thereafter Suresh Kumar Ahlmad, respondent No. 2, lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner alleging that he had stolen some pages from the file inspected by him. The petitioner was facing trial in that case for the offences under Sections 380 and 201, I.P.C. when the Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 321, Cr. P. C. for withdrawal of the prosecution against the petitioner on the following grounds:--

(i) That in the case two independent witnesses of recovery had resiled and the investigating officer had died;

(ii) That otherwise also the evidence so far recorded was not sufficient to substantiate the charge against the accused;

(iii) That in order to further the broad ends of public justice it was expedient not to pursue the case any more.

The trial Court vide its order dated 17-12-1990 Annexure P/1 dismissed the application. Against the order of the trial Court a revision petition was filed which was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 1-6-1992 vide order Annexure P/3.

The petitioner alleged that the Courts below wrongly held that public prosecutor was not competent to withdraw the case. In fact the public prosecutor gave valid reasons for withdrawal of the case and permission should be given for withdrawal as the public prosecutor was an officer of the Court and had every power to withdraw the case on the ground of paucity of evidence. Prosecution in fact had no case as all the recover witnesses had resiled from their statements and investigating officer had also died. So continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner was nothing but a misuse of the process of law.

In the return filed by the respondent it was conceded that the public prosecutor while filing the application for withdrawal of the case acted in goodfaith and moved the application on valid and cogent grounds. He was authorised to withdraw the case on the ground of paucity of evidence.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

In fact the prayer of the petitioner is not resisted by the respondents. It is correct that permission to withdraw the case should not be granted to the prosecution only on the asking of the public prosecutor and the Court must be satisfied on the material placed before it that the grant of permission would serve the administration of justice. In the instant case the charge against the petitioner was u/s 380/201, I.P.C. The witnesses in whose presence the stolen property was alleged to have been recovered did not support the prosecution version and the investigating officer expired before his statement could be recorded. The public prosecutor, therefore, moved an application for withdrawal of the case on the ground of paucity of evidence contending that evidence on record was not sufficient to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. The application was moved for the administration of justice and there was nothing to suggest that by moving the application the public prosecutor wanted to benefit the petitioner. He acted in good faith and exercised the discretion vested in him in a proper manner. In the absence of any act revealing that the permission to withdraw was being sought with an exterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of law, the application should have been allowed.

As a result I allow this petition, set aside the orders dated 17-12-1990 Annexure P/1 and 1-6-1992 Annexure P/3 and allow the application for withdrawal of the case u/s 321, Cr.P.C.