Narendra Singh vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 6316 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6316 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendra Singh vs State on 3 March, 2021

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1350/2021

1. Narendra Singh S/o Late Puran Singh, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Rajput, Amarsinghpura P.s. Sadar, Bikaner.

2. Rajpal S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o C-367, Karninagar, P.s. Bichhwal, Bikaner.

3. Ashok Kumar S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Agarwal, R/o D-142, Karninagar, Bikaner.

4. Pradeep Singh S/o Sanvar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Indira Colony, Ps Bichhwal, Bikaner.

5. Mahendra Singh @ Lal S/o Bhero Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Majisa Ka Bas, Police Station Sadar, Bikaner.

6. Chandan Singh S/o Jeevraj Singh, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Udasar P.s. Jnvc, Bikaner.

7. Mahendra Singh @ Kalu Singh S/o Late Puran Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Bailasar At Present Amarsinghpur, P.s. Sadar, Bikaner.

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. MukhtiyarKhan, P.P

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

03/03/2021

Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the order dated

17.07.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women

atrocities Cases), Bikaner whereby, while dismissing the revision

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-1350/2021]

petition, he affirmed the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner whereby the application

under Section 321 Cr.P.C for withdrawal of case by the prosecution

was dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that a case under

Sections 283, 332, 353, 436, 336, 147, 148, 149 IPC was filed

against the petitioners. After investigation, challan of the case was

presented and charges of the case were also framed. Thereafter,

an application came to be filed by the prosecution under Section

321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawn the prosecution launched against the

petitioners in view of the notification dated 09.06.2016. However,

the learned trial court rejected the said application vide order

dated 26.07.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the State

filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge

(Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, however the same was

rejected vide order dated 17.07.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that sufficient

grounds and reasons were furnished by the Assistant Public

Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal case against the petitioners,

therefore, the learned trial court and Additional Sessions Judge

has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the

prosecution. It is, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may

kindly be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts

below may be quashed and the criminal proceedings against the

petitioners may kindly be quashed. Learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1134/2011 (Prem Narain & Ors

v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 12.9.2011, Dr. Dinesh Vs. State

of Rajasthan reported in 2016(2) WLN 179 (Raj.), S.b. Criminal

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1350/2021]

Misc. Petition No. 746/2014 (Prathvi Raj & Ors Vs. State of Raj.)

decided on 02.07.2015 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Swaroop

Gupta & Ors reported in 2010 (1) R.Cr.D 171 (Raj.)

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State

Government has decided to withdraw the cases against the

petitioners, therefore, criminal proceedings may be quashed

against the petitioners.

Section 321 CrPC, which is part of Chapter 24, deals with

general provisions as to inquiries and trial, and reads as under :-

321. Withdrawal from prosecution.

The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and upon such withdrawal, --

(a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;

(b) If it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences: Provided that where such offence-

(i) Was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or

(ii) Was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or

(iii) Involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1350/2021]

(iv) Was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, And the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution."

Thus, it is clear from above, that a case may be withdrawn

by prosecution with the consent of the Court at any time before

the judgment is pronounced. Either generally or in respect of any

one or more of the offences for which the accused is tried and also

it lays down as to what will be the effect of such withdrawal.

The section gives no indication as to the grounds on which

the Public Prosecutor may make the application, or the

considerations on which the Court is to grant its consent. The

initiative is that of the Public prosecutor and what the Court has to

do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter

judicially.

In view of above, the present criminal misc. petition is