LAWS(JHAR)-2007-4-126

BHARAT RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On April 05, 2007
Bharat Raj Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of G. Case No. 940 of 2006 (T.R. No.1 of 2006) including the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh whereby application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed on account of its non -prosecution.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I may say that under the scheme of the Code prosecution of an offender is primarily the responsibility of the executive and the withdrawal from the prosecution is an executive function of the public prosecutor and, therefore, Government may suggest to the public prosecutor that he may withdraw from the prosecution and the discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the public prosecutor and none -else and that the public prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution not merely on the ground of the paucity of evidence but on other relevant grounds as well in furtherance of the ends of justice, public order and peace. Here in the instant appeal as it appears from the submission that Divisional Forest Officer instructed Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution when it appeared to him from the report of enquiry committed that petitioner has wrongly been prosecuted and on that basis application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seems to have been filed and, therefore, if the order dismissing the said application is allowed to be continued, there would be injustice to the petitioner.