PUSHPA SHEDTHL Vs. P DEVADAS SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of learned Counsel for both sides.

(2.) THE petitioner was one of the three accused in C. C. No,11022/97 disposed of on the file of the JMFC, II Court, Mangalore, vide its order dated 27-09-96 passed allowing the application under Section 321 Cr. P. C of the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed seeking permission for withdrawal of the said criminal case. The said order dated 27-09-1996 of the learned Magistrate permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case on the said application of A. P. P. , and closing further criminal proceeding against the accused therein was challenged in revision before the District and Sessions Judge, O. K. , mangalore in Criminal R. P No. 44/97, by respondent No. 1 herein who was the informant (complainant) and on whose complaint, the case for offences under Sections 506, 448 read with Section 34 i. P. C. was booked by the jurisdictional police in Crime No. 172/92 of that Police Station and on completion of investigation, charge sheet against petitioner and other two accused for the said offences was laid by the learned Magistrate. On consideration of the contents of the said application of the prosecutor and also the impugned order dated 27-09-1996 of the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions judge reached his conclusion that the said order of the learned magistrate cannot be sustained in law and in the larger interest of public Justice. Therefore, by his detailed order dated 22-07-1998, learned Sessions Judge allowed the complainant's said revision. By setting aside the impugned order dated 27-09-1996 of the learned magistrate directing him to proceed further in the said C. C. No. 11022/ 92 in accordance with law. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner accused has challenged its legality and correctness in this revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Holla, assailing the legalityand validity of the impugned order, argued that the same is vitiated on the ground that once the complaint given by respondent to police resulted in full fledged investigation and submission of charge sheet against petitioner and two others in the said C. C No. 11022/97 for the said offences, the complainant gets no locus-standi to challenge the said order dated 27-07-1996 of the learned Magistrate by which the prosecution was permitted to withdraw the case. Besides, that order was not tainted with any material legal infirmity as such and, therefore, there was no sufficient legal justification for the learned sessions Judge to disturb it and order directing the Magistrate to proceed further with the trial of the accused. Reliance was placed by petitioner's learned Counsel Mr. Holla on the decision of the supreme Court in SHEO NANDAN PASWAN vs STATE OF BIHAR and on a Single Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in ABDUR karim vs STATE and of this Court in T. ANANDARAO vs STATE of KARNATAKA.