SHITAL SINGH Vs. MAHANTH KURMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against an order dated the 10th November. 1971. passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Sitamarhi allowing the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution and discharge of the accused-opposite party in the case pending before him.

(2.) THE facts, necessary for the disposal of the present application are as follows: On the 27th July, 1970. a first information report was lodged by petitioner Shital Singh at Sitamarhi Police Station against the accused-opposite party, for offences under Sections 307 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. THE case lodged by the informant, in short, was that a woman raised some cry that Mithua Nonia's son had been killed by the son of the first informant. On this alarm, a big mob consisting of the accused persons and others, variously armed, came to the Darwaja of the informant and began to damage the tiles of the house with lathis. THE allegation further is that the accused Baldeo Nonia gave orders to loot away the shop of the informant and Nawal Kishore gave orders to kill the informant. THEreupon, some of the accused persons assaulted the informant with Lathi and he was pressed against the wall. THE accused also pointed a Bhala towards his chest and his nephew was also assaulted. THE accused thereafter looted away articles from the shop and the Dalan of the informant. THEy also looted articles from the Dalan and house of the other two petitioners. Kapildeo Singh and Rajmangal Singh. THE police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance, the case was transferred to the file of the Munsif Magistrate for disposal. Before him. on the 24th September 1971, a petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor, under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, withdrawing the prosecution. An objection petition was filed by the petitioners on the same date, opposing the withdrawal on a number of grounds raised in the petition. THEy also alleged that, the withdrawal was mala fide and not supported by reasons of the State and public policy and that it was calculated or intended to interfere with the due course of justice. THEreafter, a supplementary petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor on the 27th October, 1971. the relevant portion of which may be quoted: That I have also looked into the case diary and the papers of the case and I am satisfied that the case is fit to be withdrawn. THE petitioners, thereafter, filed another objection petition on the 30th October, 1971, alleging that no reason of State or public policy had been disclosed, so as to justify the petitions for withdrawal of the prosecution. THEreafter the learned Munsif Magistrate passed the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has contended that the learned Magistrate, in the last paragraph of his order, has stated that he was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution was in the interest, of public policy for reasons of the State, and, therefore, he was not in error in allowing withdrawal.