K KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal revision cases arise out of one order passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram rejecting a memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Sec.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused in C.C.No.13 of l987.

(2.) IT appears one Annamalai filed a private complaint before the Magistrate and that was referred by the Magistrate to the police under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. for investigation. Thereupon the police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec.323, I.P.C. During the pendency of the case the Assistant Public Prosecutor, as aforesaid, filed a memo under Sec. 321, Crl.P.C. for withdrawal of the case against the accused.

(3.) IN these two criminal revision cases the question that has to be considered is whether the said order of the Magistrate is proper or not. From a reading of Sec.321, Crl.P.C. it is clear that the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to withdraw from the prosecution of any person subject to only condition that it shall be with the consent of the court. It is also clear that the complainant will have no locus standi to object to the withdrawal. IN a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 877, while discussing the ambit of Sec.321, Crl.P.C, it has been staled as follows: