JAI PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2, in Sessions Trial No. 119/99, State of U. P. v. Jai Prakash Yadav and others, whereby he allowed the application No. 149 kha and rejected the application Nos. 92kha and 97kha filed by the prosecutor. The applications No. 92 kha and 97 kha were filed for withdrawal of the case under Section 321, Cr. P.C. and the application No. 149kha was filed with the request that these two applications be dismissed as not pressed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by Dr. Brij Bhan Yadav against the present revisionists on 4th August, 1997, alleging that in the night of 3/4 August, 1997 his niece Smt. Rekha Yadav who was married with accused Vinod Kumar Yadav was killed by the accused persons as dowry demand could not be fulfilled. In the matter after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 304B and 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D. P. Act and charges have also been framed against the accused persons.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the revisionists have not impleaded the complainant but the complainant appeared and has filed counter-affidavit in the case. He has been allowed to contest. In the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the accused persons committed brutal murder of Smt. Rekha Yadav within one and half years of the marriage due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. The investigating agency was in collusion with the accused persons and even the doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination were not fair as in the viscera report there is note to the effect that the entire stomach, the piece of intestine, piece of liver, pancreas, one kidney and spleen should have been sent as a whole but only small pieces of the tissues were sent which was objectionable. On this basis the complainant has contended that the accused had from the very beginning tried to tilt the case. ALTHOUGH, the State Government had directed the District Magistrate to withdraw the prosecution case but there was no ground for it and the learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), moved the application on 8.11.2005 (92 kha) to withdraw the prosecution without any ground. Learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), moved another application No. 97kha to withdraw the prosecution case. The perusal of this second application shows that it was moved in collusion with the accused persons without examining the facts. There was nothing in the public interest for withdrawal of the prosecution case. Sri Atul Kumar Sharma who had earlier moved the applications for withdrawal of the case, died on 31.8.2007. These applications were pending since long and the Sessions Judge transferred the sessions trial on 21.8.2007 to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No. 1 and on 6.9.2007, learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) who was working in that Court was absent and, therefore, Sri Dinesh Nath Pandey was looking after the Court work of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No. 1, Gyanpur Bhadohi and he made endorsement on the earlier applications for withdrawal of the case, not to press them and also moved an application to that effect. Thereafter the case was again transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No. 2 and the learned Judge after considering the applications has passed impugned order which does not suffer from any illegality and needs no interference. In the Government order for withdrawing the prosecution no ground was mentioned. According to the complainant the revisionist No. 1 was then District President of Samajwadi Party and the revisionist No. 2 was the District President of Yuvjan Sabha Samajwadi Party and were having good relations with the former ruling party. The charges were framed in the case on 6.2.2005 but the accused have throughout been delaying the hearing of the trial.