DHULLU MAHATO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.1.2016, passed by Shri Binod Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Sec. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner had been rejected.

(2.) The officer in charge, Barora Police Station gave a written report, in which it was alleged that on 12.05.2013, he got an information that one Rajesh Gupta, who is named in Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2013, and against whom, warrant of arrest had been issued, was hiding in his house and planning to flee away. On such information, the informant and other police personnels surrounded the house of the fugitive Rajesh Gupta, who was apprehended. As the accused was being put inside the police Jeep, the petitioner along with his supporters variously armed ransacked the police vehicle and attacked the police personnels, snatched the revolver of the informant and thereafter by using force took away Rajesh Gupta from the police custody.

(3.) Based on the aforesaid allegations, Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2013 was instituted. Upon conducting an investigation and having found the case to be true, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner on 20.08.2013 and thereafter cognizance was taken. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 29.04.2014 under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353, 332, 290, 427, 283, 224, 225 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. In course of trial, 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the investigating officer and the victim and the case had been fixed for recording statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. when an application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Sec. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 7.1.2006 had rejected such application, which is the subject matter of the present case.