RAHUL AGARWAL versus RAKESH JAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 18-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAHUL AGARWAL 
A 
v. 
RAKESH JAIN AND ANR. 
JANUARY 18, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.321-Withdrawal from prosecution-Trial of accused under ss. 341, 
295 and 506(2) r!w s.34 /PC- Case posted for examination of accused- C 
Application for withdrawal of prosecution by Asstt. Public Prosecutor 
contending that accused was not a habitual criminal-Rejected by trial court 
and revisional court but allowed by High Court for delay at the trial-Held, 
reason given by High Court is not correct-When trial was to be over, High 
Court should not have allowed it to be withdrawn-High Court's order set D 
aside. 
Pending a land dispute between appellant and respondent No. 1, the 
former filed a complaint against the latter which gave rise to trial of the 
respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate for offences punishable 
under ss. 341, 294 and 506(2) read with s.34 IPC. When the case was posted E 
for examination of the accused, an application was moved by the Assistant 
Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution. The Judicial 
Magistrate dismissed the application. The revision was dismissed by ti;e 
Additional Sessions Judge. However, the High Court allowed withdrawal 
of prosecution observing that the accused had been harassed mentally and 
suffered continuously for seven years during the trial. Aggrieved, the F 
complainant filed the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in the G 
interest of justice. Even if the Government directs the Public Prosecutor 
to withdraw the prosecution and an application is filed to that effect, the 
Court must consider all relevant circumstance and find out whether the 
withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice. The 
discretion under s.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be 
521 
II 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A carefully exercised by the Court having due regard to all the relevant facts 
and shall not be exercised to stifle the prosecution which is being done at 
the instance of the aggrieved parties or the State for redressing their 
grievance. Therefore, the withdrawal of the prosecution shall be permitted 
only when valid reasons are made out for the same. 1525-G-H; 526-A-CI 
B 
Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, [200018 SCC 710 and Sheonandan 
Paswan v. State of Bihar, 119871 1 SCC 288, relied on. 
State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR (1957) SC 389; State of 
Orissa v. Chandrika Mahapatra, 119761 4 SCC 250 and Ba/want Singh v. 
,.. 
C State of Bihar, AIR (1977) SC 2265, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, the order passed by the High Court 
permitting withdrawal of the prosecution is not legally sustainable. The 
reasons given therein are either irrelevant or incorrect and when the trial 
was posted for examination of the accused and the case was about to be 
D over the same should not have been allowed to be withdrawn by holding 
that the trial had been pending for over seven years. The impugned order 
is set aside and the Judicial Magistrate is directed to restore the case to 
the file and dispose of the same on merits at an early date. 
(523-G-H; 526-D-EI 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 559 
of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2000 of the High Court in 
Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in M. Cr!. C. No. 6973 of 2000. 
F 
Prashant Bhushan, Vishpal Gupta, N. Verma and Ms. Shavangi for the 
Appellant. 
Hari Shankar, K., Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Karan Singh, B.S. Banthia, 
P.C. Sen and Satish K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant herein challenges the order 
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhyjl Pradesh 
whereby he allowed the withdrawal of a case pending against the first 
respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Katni, Madhya 
H Pradesh. The appellant herein is the de-facto complainant in the police-charged 
RAH UL AGARWAL v. RAKESH JAIN [BALAKRISHNAN. J.] 
523 
case. The appellant's case is that he purchased an extent of 1 JO acres of land A 
in 1987 in the name of his mother, Lacchu Nai. The first respondent and one 
Dinesh Chaudhary had settled rights over this property and they, according 
to the appellant, hianipulated certain village records. Appellant's father filed 
a civil suit through the appellant, who was a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.