DHARAM PAL Vs. HEM CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the behest of the Public Prosecutor, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, allowed the withdrawal of the former from the prosecution of case in which the petitioner was the complainant. Challenging the said order, he is in revision.

(2.) FACTS as culled out from the prosecution case are these : The petitioner had filed a pre-emption suit/suits in the civil Courts at Kurukshetra and had, for the purpose, engaged Hem Chand Gupta, respondent No. 1, as his Advocate. Rati Ram, respondent No. 2, was a Clerk who was working with the said Advocate. Allegedly, a sum of Rs. 19000/- was handed over by the complainant-petitioner to the respondent-Advocate for depositing the same as one-fifth of the pre-emption money in the said suit/suits. The said money was allegedly not deposited. When confronted with that situation, the respondent-Advocate allegedly admitted having converted the said money to his own use and promised to pay it later. When repeatedly asked for making the payment, he allegedly turned turtle and said that he would not make any payment. Broadly on these allegations, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. and, after police investigation, a police report was filed in Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, having perused the police report, the evidence and the other material, as also having heard the prosecution and the accused, framed charge against the Advocate and his Clerk, respondents. The matter was at the evidence stage when an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking permission to withdraw from the prosecution against the respondent-Advocate alone while letting the case against the respondent-Clerk to continue. On the date itself of the filing of the application, the impugned order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, aggrieved against which the petitioner is in this Court.

(3.) THE learned trial Magistrate accorded permission observing as follows :-