STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM SHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-state and the accused-petitioners under Sec. 397 r/w Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dtd. 26/11/2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, No.4, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Regular Case No. 01/2021 whereby the application moved by the public prosecutor for withdrawal of prosecution against the respondents No. 2 to 4 under Sec. 321 CrPC was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Ram Sharan Singh filed a complaint regarding private agricultural land and a Preliminary Enquiry No. PE-15/2014 was registered by the ACB on 26/3/2014. Then, an FIR bearing No. 422/2014 came to be filed at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur under Ss. 109, 420, 457, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sec. 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A charge sheet was eventually filed on 26/11/2015 in the case against the accused Nishkam Diwakar and against one Shailendra Garg while investigation was ongoing under Sec. 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code against G.S. Sandhu, Omkar Mal Saini and three other individuals. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 8/5/2016 stating that while the investigation against accused Shanti Dhariwal and N.L. Meena is still underway under Sec. 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, offences were made out against accused G.S. Sandhu and Omkar Mal Saini and two other individuals named Vijay Mehta and Anil Kumar Agarwal. Thereafter, co-accused N.L. Meena and Shanti Dhariwal were the subject of a second supplementary report which was submitted on 12/6/2019 which was followed by a closure report filed against them while the investigation was kept pending against co-accused Lalit Panwar. The accused G.S. Sandhu and Nishkam Diwakar made a representation to the State stating that prosecution against them should be dropped under Sec. 321 CrPC in view of the subsequent and final conclusions reached by the Investigating Agency. The representation was examined by the UDH department and the department recorded the following findings on 19/8/2019:

(3.) On 4/9/2020, after reviewing the representation, a state-level committee was formed under the Home Department to look into the matter and to render its suitable, legal opinion. After consideration, the committee gave its findings as under: