Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1394 (RAJ)

Gopal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-09-23

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioners for quashment of order dated 11.05.2016 passed by learned Special Court (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Revision No. 64/2016, whereby he affirmed the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 35, Amer, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Criminal Case No. 154/2015 (1905/2014), for offence under Sections 143, 353 and 283 of the IPC and further to allow the application of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the criminal Case. 2. Facts of the case are that complainant lodged an F.I.R. No. 425/2012 on 05.10.2012 with the Police Station Amer, Jaipur (North) for offence under Sections 143, 353 and 283 of the IPC and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. on 27.10.2014. On 12.12.2015 the accused-petitioners and other co-accused persons surrendered before learned trial court and their bail application was allowed on the same day. On 19.11.2015, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application in the trial court praying for withdrawal of the criminal proceedings in the present case on the basis of order dated 09.09.2015, by which the State Government decided to withdraw the criminal proceedings of the present case in public interest. Learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 12.12.2015 and revision petition, preferred against that order, has been dismissed by learned revisional court vide order dated 11.05.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the case, has relied on judgments of coordinate benches of this court in Dr. Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan - 2016 (2) W.L.N. 179 and Gajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan - 2016 (1) Raj. Cri. C 132. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. In Dr. Dinesh, supra, the petitioner was a doctor and facing trial for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1970. The Home Department of the State issued order dated 13.08.2012 whereby it was decided that the case against doctors, who remained on strike in December, 2012, be withdrawn. Pursuant to that, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 321 CR.P.C. before trial court, which was rejected. Revision petition, filed there against, was also dismissed. The Home Department of the State issued order dated 13.08.2012 whereby it was decided that the case against doctors, who remained on strike in December, 2012, be withdrawn. Pursuant to that, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 321 CR.P.C. before trial court, which was rejected. Revision petition, filed there against, was also dismissed. In that case, the State Government decided to withdraw the criminal cases against eight doctors, who were involved in strike in December, 2011 and out of which the cases against seven doctors were already withdrawn by orders of competent court. This court therefore permitted the criminal proceedings pending against petitioner before trial court to be withdrawn. 6. In Gajendra Singh, supra, also the State Government ordered Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution against petitioner for offence under Sections 321 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Though, it is true that the prosecution can withdraw any case with the consent of the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced and if it is being made after framing of charge, the accused shall be acquitted in respect of such offences. The High Court acquitted the accused person. 7. In this case also the State Government directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution against the petitioners. Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. provides that if it would advance cause of justice and if case is likely to end in acquittal and was causing harassment to accused and if the withdraw of prosecution is likely to bury the dispute and bring about harmony between the parties, the court may allow withdrawal of the prosecution. 8. In view of the law laid down in the above referred cases and keeping in view the provisions of the Code, there does not appear to be any valid and cogent reason to refuse to grant permission to withdraw from the prosecution. There does not appear any oblique motive on the part of the Assistant Public prosecutor or for that matter on the part of the State Government for withdrawing from the prosecution against the petitioners. The order of the court below seems to be unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.2015 and 11.05.2016 are set aside. The order of the court below seems to be unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.2015 and 11.05.2016 are set aside. The application preferred by the Assistant Public Prosecution for withdrawn of Criminal Case No. 154/2015 (1905/2014) qua the petitioners is allowed and the petitioners are acquitted from the offences charged for on the basis of withdrawal of prosecution.