BALKAR SINGH Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in FIR no. 25 dated 10. 2.1998 registered with the police Station, Majitha in Punjab. In the said complaint he alleged that the respondent herein Jagdish Kumar and some others of m/s Bhalla Kheti Store and the respondent Rakesh Kumar and others of M/s. Bina khad Store had committed criminal acts punishable under Section. 382, 353, 506, 186 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'ipc') when he along with the staff had gone to check the stock register and quality of the goods namely super phosphate sold by them. After registering the case the concerned police authorities were investigating the same. During the pendency of the investigation the accused Jagdish Kumar and Rakesh kumar named herein above filed two separate criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. When the High Court was seized of the above criminal misc. petitions, in both the petitions a statement was made on behalf of the State that a decision has been taken by the Government to withdraw the complaint filed in FIR No. 26 dated 10. 2.1998 registered at the police station, majitha (Punjab) for the above said offence. Recording the said statement the high Court in two identical orders quashed the said FIR and gave directions to the police and the learned Magistrate not to prosecute the respective petitioners on the basis of the said FIR. It is these two orders which are challenged before us in the above criminal appeal.

(2.) Before we proceed to examine the correctness of the impugned orders of the High court it is necessary to note certain other developments that took place during the pendency of the quashing petition in the high Court. On the very day the complaint was lodged in the police station, the two concerned accused sent complaints to the state Government making certain allegations against the appellant herein who was then the Agricultural Development Officer (Enforcement) in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab State alleging among other things, demand of bribe and consequent harassment meted out by him to them for nonpayment of bribe.

(3.) On the basis of the above-mentioned complaints of the respondents herein the government initiated certain inquiries and based on the report received on such inquiries the opinion of the district attorney was sought who as per his opinion recommended to file an application under Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal of the prosecution. The State also consulted the addl. public prosecutor who was appearing in the trial, who also recommended the