PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARAMJIT Singh, the complainant in FIR No. 50 dated 19.5.2004 registered in Police Station, Garhi District Jind for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") has filed the present petition to assail order dated 6.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana allowing withdrawal from prosecution was affirmed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that on completion of investigation in the aforesaid FIR, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) was submitted before the Court and after hearing the parties, charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 201 IPC was framed against the accused and the case was pending for evidence of the prosecution. The public prosecutor filed an application dated 12.4.2008 for withdrawal from prosecution on the basis of decision taken by the Government in view of letter of Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Administration of Justice dated 8.1.2008 appended with the application. The said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 24.12.2010 and the order passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate Court vide impugned order dated 6.12.2012.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent -accused, on the other hand, would submit that before disposing of the application for withdrawal from prosecution, the public prosecutor got recorded his statement dated 24.12.2010 wherein the learned public prosecutor deposed that he had gone through the case file without any outside pressure and found that the case is fit for withdrawal in the interest of public peace. It is further argued that the Court is neither required to give a detailed reasoned order to give its consent nor would examine the materials on record if it would lead to conviction of the accused or otherwise. The judicial function implicit in the exercise of judicial discretion for granting the consent would normally mean that the Court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. For this purpose, he has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Sheo Nandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar : AIR 1987 SC 877, Abdul Karim vs. State of Karnataka 2000 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 688, Vijay kumar Baldev Mishra @ Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 269 and latest judgment of the Apex Court Bairam Muralidhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 01.