RAHUL AGARWAL Vs. RAKESH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby he allowed the withdrawal of a case pending against the first respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant herein is the de facto complainant in the police-charged case. The appellants case is that he purchased an extent of 1.30 acres of land in 1987 in the name of his mother, Lacchu Nal. The first respondent and one Dinesh Chaudhary had settled rights over this property and they, according to the appellant, manipulated certain village records. Appellants father filed a civil suit through the appellant, who was a power of attorney holder. An order of injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit and the same was confirmed by the Additional District Judge. The appellant further contended that the first respondent and Dinesh Chaudhary along with 20-25 persons came to the suit property and removed a shed constructed there and caused damage to the boundary wall. It was also alleged that in December 1992, the first respondent and his friend Dinesh Chaudhary assaulted the appellant and held a revolver against the chest of the appellant and threatened him. The appellant filed a complaint and on that basis a case was registered. After investigation, the police filed a final report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 341, 294 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On the appellants side, five witnesses were examined and the case was posted for examination of the accused. Then the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution. The Magistrate dismissed that application and a revision was filed by the first respondent. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision whereupon the first respondent moved the High Court and by the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the withdrawal of the prosecution.

(3.) We heard the appellants learned counsel and the learned counsel for the respondents.