HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under Sections 409 & 420 IPC was got registered against Hari Kishan who worked as an Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon for tampering with and removing the public record, by City Magistrate, Gurgaon. The case was investigated and certain papers of Public record which were removed from a judicial file were alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was presented against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. While the case was fixed for consideration of charge Shri A. S. Rathee, Assistant Public. Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case against Hari Kishan Petitioner. It was alleged in the application that the Public Prosecutor was of the opinion that it will be in the public interest if the case was withdrawn. To satisfy himself about the bonafide of the Public Prosecutor, the Judicial Magistrate summoned the City Magistrate on whose complaint the case was registered and after taking his statement into consideration and also the other record the trial Court dismissed the application for withdrawal of the case vide order dated 13-3-1991 Annexure P/3. Against this order the State as well as Hari Kishan petitioner filed separate revision petitions which were consolidated and were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions fudge, Gurgaon, as per order dated 13-6-1991 Annexure P/1. Hari Kishan has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the orders Annexures P/1 and P/3 with a prayer that the application filed by the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. be accepted. The petitioner alleged that by passing of the impugned orders a grave miscarriage of justice had occurred. Under Section 321 Cr.P.C. the Court's jurisdiction was supervisory in nature and the petition for withdrawal, of the prosecution should not have been rejected.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. S. Mann, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Gill, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent.