TEK CHAND Vs. TEK CHAND SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 1427 and 1428, both of 1980, as common arguments have been addressed in both the cases which require consideration of the same question of law.

(2.) FOR purposes of elucidation, it may be mentioned that Criminal Revi slon No. 1427 of 1990 is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, dated May 17, 1980 in State v. Tek Chand etc. in which challan had been put in the said Court under sections 342/323/332/3541/55/109, Indian Penal Code, in consequence of First Information Report No. 393, dated November 7, 1977 of Police Station City Bhiwani. The connected Revision Petition No. 1428 of 1980 relates to a similar case State v. Tek Chand and others in which the challan had been put in the same Court under sections 450/202/392/395/427/380/201/166/167/414/210/3231/091/120, Indian Penal Code, in pursuance to First Information Report No. 80, dated November 7, 1977 of Police Station Tosham. Though these two challans relate to two separate occurrences within the jurisdiction of the two Police Stations mentioned above, the complainants in both the cases arc the same, who are the four petitioners in the present two Revision Petitions. A perusal of the opening paragraph of the impugned orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, passed separately in the two cases, reveals that before any steps for the prosecution of the cases could be taken, the accused filed applications for the transfer of the cases, from out of State of Haryana, before the Supreme Court of India and further proceedings in the cases were stayed. From the impugned orders. It further appears that on May 17, 1980, the Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate filed separate applications under section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission for withdrawing the prosecution of the accused in these cases. These applications were disposed of by means of the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same date, i.e., May 17, 1980, which are impugned in the present Revision Petitions.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel in reference to the interpretation of the above provision is that before according permission for withdrawal of prosecution, the Court is called upon to appraise all the material available on the record and come to a firm finding that sufficient grounds exist for the giant of such permission. Apart from the other authorities, which shall be noticed later, the learned counsel for the contesting parties including the State have all relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Jain v. State and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1510, and two other connected cases. It would, therefore, be appropriate to notice the verdict of that Court in respect of interpretation of the provisions of section 321. Code of Criminal Procedure, which is the primary point mooted in the present cases. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have shown the beacon light to the ships selling on the voyage to justice and has thus, facilitated the process of the Courts subordinate. It is proposed to extract in extenso, paragraph 13 of the judgment which succinctly summarises the ratio of law on the point, emanating from the precedents or that Court,