RAJESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the applica ­tion dated 5.2.2009, which has been alleg ­edly moved in the civil suit and about which facts have been stated in para 7 of this bail application. It is contended that the Original Suit No. 397 of 2008 is pending in which the said withdrawal application has been filed. The aforesaid facts therefore dilutes the theory of the prosecution. Even otherwise there would be a direct impact of the civil proceedings which may have a binding effect on the present dispute.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the argu ­ments of the learned Counsel for the appli ­cant, it would be appropriate to point out that in some cases, it has been held that a litigant has a right to withdraw his claim in a Court of law which is absolute. Reference may be made to the decisions of Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others v. Abdul Qadire and others, AIR 1966 Alld. 318. Shiv Prasad v. Durga Prasad and oth ­ers, 1975 SCC (1) 405. and Anil Dinmani Shankar Joshi and an ­other v. Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council, Panvel and another AIR 2003 (Bom.) 238. However, there is another line of decisions which say that right to withdraw by a litigant is not abso ­lute and for that reference may be made to the decisions of Kedar Nath and others v. Chandra Kiran and others, AIR 1962 Alld. 263. Vidhydhar Dube and others v. Har Charan and others AIR 1971 Alld. 41. (This Division Bench judgment does not notice the case AIR 1966 Alld. Page 318) and Mahadkar Agency and another v. Padmakar Achannz Shetty AIR 2003 (Bom.) 136. There is yet another deci ­sion which indicates that moving of an application before a Court of law, is suffi ­cient to withdraw one's claim before the matter is decided by a Court. The Courts order only governs the consequences. Ref ­erence be made to the decision of Sheikh Khalikuzzama and others v. Shaikh Akhtaruzzama and others 2004 (55) ALR 368. The Apex Court has also rendered several decisions indicating as to when the Court grants permission to with ­draw a claim. Reference be made to the decisions of Bakhtawar Singh and another v. Sada Kaur and another 1996 (11) SCC 167 Ram Copal Baheti v. Giridharilal Soni and others, 1999 (3) SCC 112 and K.S. Bhoopathy and others v. Kokila and others 2000 (5) SCC 458.

(3.) LET the applicant - Rajesh in ­volved in Case Crime No. C -5 of 2009, un ­der sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shohratgarh, Dis ­trict Siddharth nagar, be enlarged on bail on his executing a -personal bond and furnish ­ing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Application Allowed.