TEK CHAND Vs. TEK CHAND SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two special leave petitions and a writ petition were filed for a common purpose - the writ petition questioning the vires of S. 321 of the Criminal P. C. of 1973 and these two special leave petitions questioning the correctness of the order of the High Court by which it affirmed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani, according permission under the same S. 321 for withdrawal of a prosecution against the respondents excepting the State of Haryana. We have already dismissed the writ petition and now proceed to dispose of the special leave applications. As lengthy arguments were advanced we propose to make a brief but speaking order.

(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are inclined to think that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was perhaps not appropriate in law. The High Court did go into the question afresh in its revisional jurisdiction but there could also be some arguments possible with reference to what the High Court has said. We are, however, definitely of the view that no useful purpose will be served in setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court and in directing the prosecution to proceed as there is, in our opinion, no chance of ultimate conviction. Allowing such a prosecution to proceed will only be harassment to the parties and wastage of public time. Now we briefly indicate some features to justify this conclusion of ours.

(3.) The incident is dated 2-4-1974. The First Information Report has been registered suo motu by the police in November 1977 - after a gap of more than 31/2 years. The victims of the injuries were also accused of criminal offences said to have taken place at the same point of time and were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani on 3-4-1974. The Judicial Magistrate enlarged them on bail and finding injuries on their persons directed them to be medically examined. There is no material before us to show that the victims had complained to the learned Judicial Magistrate that the present accused persons were the authors of the injuries on them. We gave an opportunity to the petitioner's to produce such material but with no result. For the first time, witnesses to the occurrence were examined towards the end of 1977 and beginning of 1978 during investigation.