Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 March, 2014
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 395 of 2014
Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Daga,Niklank Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
The revision has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 25.1.2014 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Etah in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) SC and ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah whereby the court below has allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution case which the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were facing in the Court.
Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State. The entire records have also been perused.
The central hub of the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist is that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law because of the reason that at an earlier stage the same court had refused to discharge the accused on the ground that prima facie there was sufficient material available on the record on the basis of which the charge ought to be framed against them. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that after having concluded and given the finding about the sufficiency of material on the basis of which the charges should be framed, the court below should not have allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution which was going on against the accused.
In rebuttal, the learned AGA has sought to argue that the withdrawal of prosecution and merit of the case are two independent things and cannot be confounded with each other. The grounds on the basis of which the charges may be framed are entirely different from grounds on the basis of which the State may deem it fit to withdraw a particular prosecution against a particular accused.
According to the learned AGA it is a matter of public policy and larger public interest has to be seen into and that is why the special provision of Section 321 Criminal Procedure Code has been enacted which gives and confers the right to withdraw a prosecution after observing certain modalities and legal formalities.
According to the learned AGA there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and the previous order refusing the discharge of the accused is not incompatible with the present order under challenge which has permitted the withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused.
I had occasion to go through the record of the case and have also perused the impugned order.
The impugned order is signified by a very sound analysis of facts. The court below has appreciated the entire material in the right perspective. It has taken into account the gravity of the offence, the facts and circumstances in which the alleged offences are said to have taken place, the social fall outs and the implications which the withdrawal of this case may be likely to have and the entire factual matrix of the case has also been marshaled and analyzed well. Relevant case laws have also been cited. It is true that in a given case the Court has got the power not to permit the withdrawal of the prosecution and may withhold its consent. It is also true that the court below is not to act as merely a post office where the judge is to practically lend his acquiescence to the request made on behalf of the public prosecutor in all cases all the time.
If in a given case the Court comes to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the prosecution is motivated with vested interests or the withdrawal of the prosecution instead of promoting the public interest is going to prove deleterious to the same and shall in the ultimate analysis corrode the public faith in judiciary and public administration as such, the Court should not feel shy to refuse its consent and shall certainly not become a party to such a motivated or malafide exercise. But it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In normal course, ordinarily, the areas where a State has been vested with certain discretion which of course has to be exercised in the best of larger public interest, the courts are loath to jump into the fray and replace the State privilege very lightly or in routine course. There has to be a substantial cause. The power to grant sanction in certain offences is also akin, if not similar, to the provisions of Section 321 Cr.P.C. where to a certain extent and in a certain degree it partakes its essential characters. There are certain areas where state authorities are supposed to be more well versed and more competent to look into the larger public interest and the far reaching wider socio-political consequences of a particular prosecution. If in a given case the State exercises its vested rights conferred on it by statute in good faith and in a bonafide manner, the same cannot be lightly interfered with.
The request seeking the consent or permission of the Court to allow the withdrawal of prosecution proceedings against certain accused is a kind of joint venture in which the State authorities and the public prosecutor equally participate. It is certainly a legitimate judicial exercise of the Court to see that the same does not smack of any objectionable malafidies. It is in fact quite desirable for the Courts to see that the request is not a colourable exercise of administrative power. But if there is nothing to indicate that the request is affected with any such vice, there cannot be any objection or reason for this Court to withhold its consent.
Perusal of the impugned order does not reflect any such illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in it which may call for any interference by this Court.
The revision is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.3.2014
Manish Tripathi
