TEKCHAND & ANR. versus TEKCHAND, SUPDT. OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 376 · Decided: 28-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
TEKCHAND & ANR. 
v. 
TEKCHAND, SUPDT. OF POLICE & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1986 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Withdrawal of Prosecution-Cha,1ces of conviction farfetched and 
bleak and evidence not forthcoming as per the report under section 173(8) of the 
Criminal Procedure Code-Whether the grant of permission for nolles 
prosequi under section 321 of the Code i• order. 
In respect of certain incident dated 2.4.1974, the First Infonnation 
Report has been registered suo motu by tile Police after 31;\ years, on the basis 
of the report of Commission of Inquiry. The victims of the injuries were also 
accused of criminal offences said to have taken place at the same point of time 
who were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani on 2.4.74 and 
D 
were also medically examined. They did not file any private complaint, though 
released on bail. Based on the report of the Investigating Agency under section 
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor filed an 
application under section 321 of the Cmle for withdrawal of the prosecution 
case which was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. The High 
Court also affirmed the said order. Hence the Special Leave Petitions. 
E 
Dismissing the petitions, the Coor~ 
HELD: In the facts and circumsta >ces of the case, it is in public interest 
that the Prosecution should not proceed with the prosecution. A report under 
section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure hy the investigating agency 
F 
indicated that adequate evidence has not been forthcoming to support the 
prosecution which was commenced suo motu on the basis of a report of the 
Commission of ·Inquiry on whose finding no conviction can lie. The victims 
. ). 
themselves who were the accused of crindnal offences said to have taken place 
at the same point of time did not complai > before the Magistrate concerned and 
~-
did not file private complaints. The plea that one of the accused persons was the 
G 
son of a political figure wielding influtmce did not deter the Magistrate in 
ordering release the victims in the earlier case. Further chances of 
conviction are too far-fetched and bl.,ak. [378E, BJ 
' 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Crl). Nos. 1682 And 3120 of. 1983. 
H 
376 
TEKCHAND v. TEKCHAN?, SUPDT. OF POLICE 
377 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1983 of the Punjab and 
A 
Haryana High Court in Crl. Revision No. 1427 & 1428 of 1980. 
Govind Mukhoty and Sarva Mitter for the Petitioners. 
M.C. Bhandari, Harbans Lal, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, C.V. Subba Rao, S.K. 
Bisaria, Ravindra Bana and N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondents. 
B 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
These two special leave petitions and a writ petition were filed for a 
common purpose~the writ petition questioning the vi res of section 321 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and these two special leave petitions 
questioning the correctness of the order of the (High Court by which it affirmed 
C 
the order of the Chief Judici<1l Magistrate of Bhiwani, according permission 
under the same section 321 for withdtawal of a prosecution .against the 
respondents excepting the State of Haryana. We have already dismissed ihe 
writ petition and now proceed to dispose of the special leave applications. As 
lengthy arguments were advanced we propose to make a brief but speaking 
D 
order. 
Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are inclined fo think that 
the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was perhaps not appropriate 
in law. The High Court did go into the question afresh in its revisional 
jurisdiction but there could also be some a.rguments possible with reference to 
what the High Court has said. We are, however, definitely of the view that no 
useful purpose will be served in setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court and in directing the prosecution to 
proceed as there is, in our opinion, no chance of ultimate conviction. Allowing 
such a prosecution to proceed will only be harassment· to the parties and 
wastage of public time. Now we briefly indicate so~e features to justify this 
conclusion of ours. 1 
· The incident is dated 2.4.1974. The First Information Report has been 
registered suo motu by the police in November 1977-after a gap of more than 
3Y, years. The victims of the injuries were also accused of criminal offences said 
E 
F 
. to have taken place at the same point of time a

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