STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NARENDRA MEGHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner who is a Government Advocate-cum-AAG has filed the misc. petition with the following prayer:

(2.) Learned GA-cum-AAG Mr. G.S. Rathore, submits that public agitation was in the public interest and public at large including the accused-respondents were agitating for several public issues relating to the condition of roads, electricity, health, and etc. Shri Rathore further submits that the agitation was for a public cause and in the interest of public at large and the accused respondents had no personal interest in the agitation. Therefore, leave to withdraw the prosecution may be granted. He further submits that according to the F.I.R., 45 named persons and 100 other unknown persons had gathered around and were agitating for public cause. He also submits that only 48 persons have been charge-sheeted and vide order dtd. 11/7/2018, cognizance has been taken against 48 persons for the offences under Ss. 143 and 283 I.P.C and sec. 8(B) of National Highways Act. He contends that as per charge-sheet, there are omnibus allegations against the accused respondents. He further submits that it is not clear from the charge-sheet that what role was played by the accused persons. He also submits that offences under Sec. 143 and 283 of IPC are of petty nature, punishable with a maximum term of 6 months. So far as offence under Sec. 8(B) of the National Highways Act is concerned, same is not made out as there is no evidence available on record to attract the ingredients of Sec. 8(B) of the National Highways Act. It has also been submitted that alleged offences are not related to moral turpitude or corruption charges. Finally, he prays that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, permission for withdrawal of prosecution may be granted as by and large, prosecution requires to be withdrawn considering the fact that alleged cause of incident was entirely in the interest of public and accused persons have no personal interest in it. It has also been submitted that straightaway, no application of withdrawal of the prosecution can be filed before the trial court as Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr. has held as under:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has not opposed the submissions advanced by learned GA-cum-AAG. He submits that accused respondents are/were public representatives and they are under legal and social obligations to raise the demands of public before the state authorities. They were discharging their legal and social obligations and there was no intention at all to commit any offence or to cause any hindrances in law and order.