DAYA NAND Vs. AMIN LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the present Criminal Revision No. 957 as also Criminal Revision No. 958 of 1979, both of which have common questions of fact and law for consideration. The former petition relates to a case in which the respondents were challaned under sections 148, 452, 506, 380, 323/149 and 395, Indian Penal Code, while the latter case pertains to an offence under section 15 of the Arms Act. Both these cases are pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Separate applications were moved in these cases by the Public Prosecutor under section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking permission of the Court to withdraw from the prosecution of these cases. It was stated in the applications that the cases were the result of a strained relationship between two real brothers and that on further enquiry, these cases had been found to be false and contrary to facts. The trial Court after hearing the parties, decided both the applications in favour of the prosecution and discharged the accused -respondents in both the cases. The present Revision petitions filed by the complainant, seek to impugn the decision of the trial Court in those matters.

(2.) ON behalf of the State -respondent, the learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner who is a complainant, had no locus standi to object to the impugned order and the parties have addressed some arguments on this point. I, however, found that it is not at all necessary to enter into this controversy in the present cases, as the facts and circumstances on the record clearly bore out the justification for the withdrawal of the cases against the respondents. As already noticed, the dispute is between two real brothers and the further investigation in the matter had revealed that there was no chance of success in the cases against the respondents. This circumstance is within the domain of the public prosecutor to assess and not for anybody else. While consistently holding this view, I have relied upon State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mahaptra and others : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 903, wherein their Lordships followed the view expressed in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandy : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 389, to the following effect: -

(3.) THE result is that both these Revision Petitions are without merit and are consequently dismissed.