HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reservedon14.03.2019
Deliveredon15.05.2019
CourtNo.-67
Case:-CRIMINALREVISIONNo.-3971of2018
Revisionist:-StateOfU.P.
OppositeParty:-Mohd.FurkanAndAnother
CounselforRevisionist:-G.A.
CounselforOppositeParty:-VijayaNandMaurya
AND
Case:-APPLICATIONU/S482No.-44691of2018
Applicant:[email protected]
OppositeParty:-StateOfU.P.AndAnother
CounselforApplicant:-DileepKumar,NirajKumarShukla,RajrshiGupta
CounselforOppositeParty:-G.A.,VijayaNandMaurya
Hon’bleRahulChaturvedi,J.
1.PerusalofrecordestablishesthatApplicationU/S482No.-44691of2018([email protected])hasbeenfiledagainstorderdated29.08.2018passedbyI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),BijnorewherebylearnedcourthasrejectedapplicationKha148filedunderSectionsection321Cr.P.C.,bythePublicProsecutor/ProsecutingOfficerforwithdrawlofprosecutiono[email protected]MausamandCriminalRevisionNo.3971of2018(SectionStateofU.P.v.Mohd.Furkanandanother)hasalsobeenfiledbytheStatechallengingtheaforesaidorderonthegroundofappreciationofevidencebythecourtofI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),Bijnore,whichisallegedlyarbitraryanderroneousintheeyesoflaw.
2.Asboththeaforesaidconnectedmatters,throughdifferentjudicialprovisions,havebeentargettedagainstsolitaryorderdated29.08.2018passedbyI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),BijnoreinSessionTrialNo.121of2016(SectionStatev.Sansarandothers)arisingoutofCaseCrimeNo.1036of2016,underSectionsections147,Section148,Section149,Section302,Section307,Section452,Section504,Section436,Section337IPCand7oftheSectionCriminalLawAmendmentAct,P.S.KhotwaliShahr,DistrictBijnoretherefore,boththecasesi.e.,ApplicationU/S482No.-44691of2018([email protected])andCriminalRevisionNo.3971of2018(SectionStateofU.P.v.Mohd.Furkanandanother)arebeingadjudicatedanddecidedbythisCourttogetherwiththeconsentofrivalcontestingparties.
Pleadingshavebeenexchangedbetweenthepartiesandthematterisripeforfinalarguments.
3.HeardSriDileepKumar,assistedbySriBhuvneshKumarSinghandSriRajarshiGupta,learnedcounselfortheapplicant,learnedAGAfortheStateandSriVijayaNandMaurya,learnedcounselforprivateoppositepartyappearinginApplicationU/S482No.-44691of2018([email protected]).
4.SriVinodKant,learnedcounselforAdditionalAdvocateGeneralassistedbySriPantanjaliMishraSriNikhilChaturvedi,learnedAGAsfortherevisionist,SriVijayanadMaurya,learnedcounselforprivateoppositepartyhasalsobeenheardinCriminalRevisionNo.-3971of2018(SectionStateofU.P.v.Mohd.Furkanandanother).
5.Beforecomingtothemeritsofthecase,itisnecessarytospelloutthefactsofthecaseinitsentirety,therefore,theyarebeingenumeratedhereinbelow:
6.Asperprosecution,theapplicant-AishwaryaChaudharyaliasMausam,registeredasanAdvocateinBarCouncilofU.P.,AllahabadisameritoriousandwellestablishedpracticinglawyeratBijnorejudgeship.Hehappenstobetheex-PresidentofDistrictYouthBarAssociation,Bijnore,organizedlawawarenessprogrammes,legalaidcampsforpoorlitigantsandinstrumentalinmaintainingtheadministrationofjustice.Infact,heisaphilanthropist,whoisengrossedindozensofsocial,culturalandpoliticalactivitiesinBijnore.Inadditiontothis,hehashelpednumberofyoungandupcominglawyersinboostinguptheirrespectivecareers,assistedtheminhourofneed.Besidesthis,heisanincometaxpayeeforlastsomanyyears.
7.Learnedcounselfortheapplicantsubmittedthatinordertotarnishtheimageandreputationoftheapplicant,hisopponentshavehatchedconspiracytoinvolvehimatalaterstageoftheinvestigationinthecase.Thefactofthematteristhatoppositepartyno.2-Md.FurqanlodgedanFIRat9.30hourson16.09.2016atPoliceStationKotwaliShahr,DistrictBijnoreunderSectionsections147,Section148,Section149,Section302,Section307,Section452,Section504,Section436,Section337IPCand7oftheSectionCriminalLawAmendmentActwithregardtoaquarreloccurredbetweentherivalparties,wherein26namedandthreeunnamedpersonsweremadeaccusedbytheinformant.InthemeleeitisallegedthatAnisuddin,EhsanandSarfarazlosttheirlivesandfewotherssustainedsimpleinjuries.IntheentiretextoftheaforesaidFIR,thenameoftheapplicantdoesnotfindplaceanywhere.Thepolice,afterconductinginvestigationsubmitted,itsfirstchargesheetno.723of2016on15.12.2016againstalltheaccusedpersonsnamely;Sasaar,TikamSinghs/oBattialiasRamSharan,Tejpal,Pankaj,Anuj,Satish,Prem,Billus/oMahendra,Rinku,Sonu,Kukku,Sompal,Rajpal,AnilKumar,KuwarSen,BillualiasTillus/oAshokKumarandTikamSinghs/oShaunathSinghandtheretoothenameoftheapplicantwasnotevenwhispered.ThereafterthereseemsthattheevilmindoftherivalsoftheapplicantsstartedplayingwhichpavedwayformakinghaywhilethesunshinesandthusnameoftheapplicantwasgotinsertedinG.D.No.56on19.09.2016bymaneuveringthepolice.Submissionofthesecondchargesheetno.723-Aof2016on24.12.2016istheresultofthedirtygameplayedbythepoliceincollusionwiththerivalsoftheapplicantbecauseintheaforesaidsecondchargesheet,thenameoftheapplicantAishwaryaChaudharyaliasMausamhasbeendraggedintoasaccused.Attentionofthecourthasbeendrawntowardsorderdated29.08.2018passedbyI-AdditionalSessionJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSO,BijnorewhiledismissingapplicationKha-148,ithasbeenmentionedthatthirdchargesheetno.723-Bwassubmittedbythepoliceon30.03.2017andithasbeenpennedthereinthatsomeofthenamedaccusedwerenotinvolvedinthecasewhereassomenamedpersonsi.e.,Dilawar,Prafull,Pappan,NareshandTishuwereexoneratedbythepoliceandthecourtconcernedsummonedtheaccusedpersonsvidetheaforesaidorderdated30.03.2017ontheprotestpetitionfiledbythefirstinformanttofacetrial.Thereafterfinalsupplementaryreportwasfiledbythepoliceon16.09.2017mentioningthereinthattheaccusedapplicantwasnotfoundtobeinvolvedintheinstantcase.TheaforesaidthirdchargesheetalongwiththefinalsupplementaryreportsubmittedbythepolicewastakenonrecordbythecourtoftheAdditionalSessionJudge/F.T.C.-I,Bijnoreon19.09.2017.IntheaforesaidapplicationKha-148,ithasalsobeenmentionedbytheapplicantthatthenameoftheapplicantneitherappearedintheFIRnorintheG.D.C.S.No.723,723-A,723-BandfourthSCD-12.Itisalsocrystalclearthatnoadverseremarkagainsttheapplicantwasmadeinthefurtherinvestigationconductedbythepoliceandnorecoveryofanyincriminatingarticlewasmadeeitherfromthepointingoutoftheapplicantorfromhispossessionbythepoliceduringtheaforesaidfurtherinvestigation.Itisalsonoteworthythatthereisnocross-caseoftheincidentintheinstantcase.Itispertinenttojotdownthatduringfurtherinvestigation,StatementsofnumberofindependentwitnessesaswellastheinjuredwitnesseswererecordedstatementsunderSectionsection161Cr.P.C.,whointheirrespectivestatementsunequivocallysubmittedthattheywerenotevenpresentatthesiteoftheincidentattherelevantpointoftimeandthenameoftheaccusedapplicant-AishawaryaChaudharyaliasMausamhasbeentakenontheinstigationmadebythefellowvillagers.
8.Intheaforesaidbackdropfollowingsalientpointscomesintofora:
(i)AccusedapplicantAishwaryaChaudharywasnotnamedintheFIR.
(ii)Noneofthewitnesses,whosenameshavebeendepictedintheFIRevenwhisperedawordagainsttheapplicanttotheeffectthathewasinanywayinvolvedinthecommissionoftheaforesaidoffence.
(iii)Thepoliceduringfurtherinvestigationasrecordedstatementsofatleast38witnessesincluding16injuredpersonsbutnotofthewitnessestookthenameoftheapplicantthathewasovertlyorcovertlyinvolvedinthecommissionofcrime.
(iv)Therewasnorecoveryofanyincriminatingarticleorweaponfromthepossessionoftheaccusedapplicantoronhispointingout.
(v)Videorderdated14.11.2017coordinateBenchofthisCourtwhileentertainingCriminalMisc.BailApplicationNo.3820of2017(SectionArunKabadiv.StateofU.P.)categoricallymentionedbythelearnedcounselfortheapplicantArunKabadithatatthetimeoftheincidentdated16.03.2016.
(vi)Inthesupplementaryreportfiledon19.07.2017bytheInvestigatingOfficerFatehSingh,[email protected]wasnotinvolvedintheincident.
9.ItisnextsubmittedthattheapplicantwasmadeaccusedonthebasisofthestatementsrecordedunderSectionsections161Cr.P.C.,bythosewitnesses,whowerenotevennamedintheFIRaswitnessorhappenedtobetheinjuredinthecase,resultantly,inthethirdchargesheet,theInvestigatingOfficerremovedsomeoftheaccusedpersons,whowereearliernamedinthechargesheet.
10.Onthebasisoftheapplicationandtheaffidavitsfiledinthecourtconcerned,theinvestigationwasconductedbytheprosecutionandstatementofthecomplainantFurkanandotherwitnesseswererecordedunderSectionsection161Cr.P.C.whereintheyexplicitlyresilingfromtheirearlierstatements,concededthataccusedAishwaryawasnotinvolvedintheincident,whichwasthegenesisforthesubmissionofthefinalsupplementaryreportdated19.09.2017bythepolicewherethefindingofnon-involvementoftheAishwaryaChaudharyinthecasehadtobeunveiled.
11.LearnedcounselfortheapplicanthasfurtherdrawnattentionofthisCourttowardsapplicationoftheinformantFurkan,s/oHasan,dated20.08.2018,supportedbyhispersonalaffidavit,filedinthecourtoftheAdditionalDistrictJudge,Bijnore,bearinghisownsignature,annexure32ofthepetition.
12.ThisCourthascarefullyperusedtheaforesaidapplicationanditsaffidavitfiledbytheinformant.Throughtheaforesaidapplication,theinformanthashimselfconcededthathehasbeen[email protected]Mausamisnotevenremotelyconnectedwiththeinstantcase.
13.Ontheaforesaidfactualparameters,itisfurthersubmittedthatinthepresentcasethetrialcourthasnotframedchargesagainsttheapplicantandthematterisstillpendingonthestageofappearingitself.Theentirematerialavailableonrecordunveilsthatthereisnothingonrecordtoconnectthepresentapplicantintheaforesaidoffence.Hefurtherharpeduponthatbynostretchofimaginationasthereisnoevidenceonrecordfasteningtheapplicantintheoffence,heisliabletobesetfreefromtheinstantcase.
14.SriVinodKant,learnedAdditionalAdvocateGeneralappearingfortherevisionist,atthisjunctureintervenedinthematterandsubmittedthattheantecedentalhistoryoftheapplicantandnarratingthereasonsandcauseoftheinvolvementoftheapplicantsubmittedthatmuchearliertotheregistrationofthepresentcase,on12.06.2007anFIRwasgotregisteredbySmt.VinodKumaribearingCaseCrimeNo.775of2007,underSectionsection376IPC,P.s.Nagina,DistrictBijonoreagainstManojParas,Jaipal,AssuandKunwa[email protected]Mausamwasappearingascounselfortheinformant-Smt.VinodKumarinthatcase.ThepolicesubmittedchargesheetfortheoffenceunderSectionsection376IPCagainsttheaccusednamedpersons.Lateronthesaidaccusedno.1ManojParas,becameMemberofLegislativeAssemblyintheU.P.StatethereafterswitchedovertothepostofaMinisterintheU.P.Governmentduringthesession2012-2016andonaccountofhishighpoliticalpowerswiththeassistanceofex-MLAKunwariRuchiVeeraandex-M.P.RajaBhartenduSingh,[email protected][email protected]tappearinginthecasebeforetheCourtinfavouroftheinformantandgetthemattercompromisedwiththevictim,whichAishwarya[email protected]MausamfornotfollowingdiktatsoftheaforesaidManojParas,madehimfuriousandtosettlescorewithhim,theinstantCaseCrimeNo.1036of2016,underSectionsections147,Section148,Section149,Section302,Section307,Section452,Section504,Section436,Section337IPCand7oftheSectionCriminalLawAmendmentAct,P.S.KhotwaliShahr,DistrictBijnorehasbeenslappeduponhimontheinstigationofManojParas.
15.Theaforesaidbackdropofthecaseturnedtobetheprimereasonofimplicatingtheapplicantintheaforesaidcasebyluringthewitnessesandputtingwordsintotheirmouthsforvomitingoutthenameoftheapplicantintheirrespectivestatementsduringinvestigationatthelaterstage.
16.Afterculminationoftheentireinvestigation,whennothingincriminatingarticle/material/evidencewasfoundagainsttheapplicant,heapproachedtheStateGovernmentthroughrepresentationaddressedtotheChiefMinister,U.P.,withtheprayerthattheprosecutioninS.T.No.121of2016arisingoutofCrime1036of2016pendinginthecourtoftheAdditionalSessionJudge/F.t.c.-I,BijnoremaybewithdrawnunderSectionsection321Cr.P.C.Respondingtotheaboverepresentation,theStateGovernmentsummonedreportfromtheprosecutingagency,thereaftertheproposalofwithdrawlofthepresentoffenceonlyagainsttheapplicantwascommunicatedbytheInchargeDistrictGovernmentCounsel(Criminal),BijnorewhichwasapprovedbytheJointDirector(Prosecution),BjnoreandsenttotheStateGovernmentthroughtheDistrictMagistrateconcernedforhisfinalreport.TheofficersintheGovernmentreportedtheStatethatthereisnomaterialonrecordtoimplicatetheapplicantintheoffence,hence,nochargecanbeframedagainsthim.Therefore,intheinterestofpublicinterestandingoodfaiththeprosecutionoftheapplicantinthepresentcasecanbewithdrawn.ThegettheaforesaidstandoftheStatemachinerydoublesure,theStateGovernmentsoughtlegalopinionfromtheAdvocateGeneraloftheStateofU.P.,whereupontheAdvocateGeneralcategoricallyopinedthatthecontinuationofprosecutionagainsttheapplicantwouldmounttobeundueharassmentontheapplicant,assuchvalidreasonsareavailableforwithdrawingtheprosecutionagainsttheapplicantintheinterestofpublicandintheinterestofjustice.Afterbeingassuredfromalltheavailablequarters,theStateGovernment(DepartmentofLaw)throughAssistantSecretary,issuedaGovernmentOrderdated04.06.2018totheDistrictMagistrate,Bijnoretocommunicatethedecis[email protected]MausamwiththerequestthatHon’bletheAdvocateGeneralhaspleasedtowithdrawtheprosecutionoftheapplicantinexerciseofpowerundersection319Cr.P.C.inpublicinterestandrequestedfurthertoexaminethematerialonrecordandmoveanappropriateapplicationundersection321Cr.P.C.
17.PersuanttotheaforesaiddirectionbytheGovernmentofU.P.,SriAjayKumar,theInchargeDistrictGovernmentCounsel(Criminal),afterexaminingthematerialthoroughlyandafterapplyinghisjudicialmindmovedapplicationKha-148supportedbyhispersonalaffidavit,on06.08.2018inthecourtofI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),Bijnore,mentioningalltherelevantfactsandcircumstancesofthecasetherein,withaprayerthatintheinterestofjustice[email protected]MausaminSessionTrialNo.121of2016(SectionStatev.Sansarandothers)arisingoutofCaseCrimeNo.1036of2016,underSectionsections147,Section148,Section149,Section302,Section307,Section452,Section504,Section436,Section337IPCand7oftheSectionCriminalLawAmendmentAct,P.S.KhotwaliShahr,DistrictBijnoremaybewithdrawnbuttheaforesaidapplicationwasrejectedbythecourtconcernedvideorderdated29.08.2018.
18.Afterconsideringtheentirefactsandcircumstancesnarratedinboththepetitionsi.e.applicationfiledunderSectionsection482Cr.P.C.andCriminalRevisionNo.3971of2018andsubmissionsmadebytherespectivecounsel,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatundoubtedly,anycriminaloffenceisoneagainstthesocietyatlargecastinganonerousresponsibilityontheState,astheguardianandpurveyorofhumanrightsandprotectoroflawofdischargeitssacrosanctroleresponsiblyandcommittedly,alwaysaccountabletothelaw-abidingcitizenryforanylapse.[SectionPoojaPalv.UnionofIndia(2016)3SCC135].
19.Thecriminaljusticeisdependentontheagenciesofgovernmentchargedwithenforcinglaw,adjudicatingcrimeandcorrectingcriminalconduct.CriminaljusticemandatesfairandproperinvestigationwithanavowedobjecttobringoutallmaterialbeforetheCourtofcompetentjurisdictiontoenableittofindoutthetruth.Unsolvedcrimes,unsuccessfulprosecution,unpunishedoffendersandwrongfulconvictionsbringsourcriminaljusticesystemindisreputetherebycreatinganimpressiononacommonerthattheycangetawaywithanycrime,whichtarnishesnotonlytheimageoftheinvestigationagencybutofjudicialsystemaswell.Truthwillbeacausalityifduetoexternalpressure,guiltypersongetsawayfromtheclutchesoflaw.
20.Onthesebasicparameters,itwouldbeappropriatetoexaminetheprovisionsofSection321Cr.P.C.,whichisenumeratedhereinbelowforreadyreference:
Section321inSectionTheCodeOfCriminalProcedure,1973:
321.Withdrawalfromprosecution.ThePublicProsecutororAssistantPublicProsecutorinchargeofacasemay,withtheconsentoftheCourt,atanytimebeforethejudgmentispronounced,withdrawfromtheprosecutionofanypersoneithergenerallyorinrespectofanyoneormoreoftheoffencesforwhichheistried;and,uponsuchwithdrawal,-
(a)ifitismadebeforeachargehasbeenframed,theaccusedshallbedischargedinrespectofsuchoffenceoroffences;
(b)ifitismadeafterachargehasbeenframed,orwhenunderthisCodenochargeisrequired,heshallbeacquittedinrespectofsuchoffenceoroffences:Providedthatwheresuchoffence-
(i)wasagainstanylawrelatingtoamattertowhichtheexecutivepoweroftheUnionextends,or
(ii)wasinvestigatedbytheDelhiSpecialPoliceEstablishmentundertheDelhiSpecialPoliceEstablishmentAct,1946(25of1946),or
(iii)involvedthemisappropriationordestructionof,ordamageto,anypropertybelongingtotheCentralGovernment,or
(iv)wascommittedbyapersonintheserviceoftheCentralGovernmentwhileactingorpurportingtoactinthedischargeofhisofficialduty,andtheProsecutorinchargeofthecasehaghotbeenappointedbytheCentralGovernment,heshallnot,unlesshehagbeenpermittedbytheCentralGovernmenttodoso,movetheCourtforitsconsenttowithdrawfromtheprosecutionandtheCourtshall,beforeaccordingconsent,directtheProsecutortoproducebeforeitthepermissiongrantedbytheCentralGovernmenttowithdrawfromtheprosecution.
STATEAMENDMENT
UttarPradesh;
InSection321,afterthewords”inchargeofacasemay”insertthewords”onthewrittenpermissionoftheStateGovernmenttothateffect(whichshallbefiledintheCourt)’
[VideUttarPradeshAct18of1991,sec3(w.e.f.16-2-1991)
21.Section321ofCr.P.C.1973dealswiththepowerofPublicProsecutor/AssistantPublicProsecutortowithdrawcaseofwhichheisin-chargeafterobtainingwrittenpermissionfromtheStateGovernmentandthatpermissionisrequiredtobefiledinCourt.ThepowerofwithdrawalcanbeinvokedbythePublicProsecutor/AssistantPublicProsecutor,In-chargeofthecasewhensameismadeingoodfaith,intheinterestofpublicpolicyandjusticeandnottothwartorstifletheprocessoflaw.TheaforesaidprovisionrelatingtowithdrawalhasbeensubjectmatterofconsiderationinvariousjudgementsofApexCourtaswellasofthisCourt.
22.Inthisregardfirstandforemost,isinthecaseofRAJENDRAKUMARJAINETC.v.STATETHROUGHSPECIALPOLICEESTABLISHMENTANDORS[1980(3)SCCpage435],theHon’bleApexCourt,afterdiscussingthemeritofthecasehassummarizedtheimpactofSection321Cr.P.C.asfollows:
“….Thus,fromtheprecedentsofthisCourt;wegather,
1.UndertheschemeSectionoftheCodeprosecutionofanoffenderforaseriousoffenceisprimarilytheresponsibilityoftheExecutive.
2.ThewithdrawalfromtheprosecutionisanexecutivefunctionofthePublicProsecutor.
3.ThediscretiontowithdrawfromtheprosecutionisthatofthePublicProsecutorandnoneelse,andso,hecannotsurrenderthatdiscretiontosomeoneelse.
4.TheGovernmentmaysuggesttothePublicProsecutorthathemaywithdrawfromtheprosecutionbutnonecancompelhimtodoso.
5.ThePublicProsecutormaywithdrawfromtheprosecutionnotmerelyonthegroundofpaucityofevidencebutonotherrelevantgroundsaswellinordertofurtherthebroadendsofpublicjustice,publicorderandpeace.Thebroadendsofpublicjusticewillcertainlyincludeappropriatesocial,economicand,weadd,politicalpurposesSansTammanyHallenterprise.
6.ThePublicProsecutorisanofficeroftheCourtandresponsibletotheCourt.
7.TheCourtperformsasupervisoryfunctioningrantingitsconsenttothewithdrawal.
8.TheCourt’sdutyisnottoreappreciatethegroundswhichledthePublicProsecutortorequestwithdrawalfromtheprosecutionbuttoconsiderwhetherthePublicProsecutorappliedhismindasafreeagent,uninfluencedbyirrelevantandextraneousconsiderations.TheCourthasaspecialdutyinthisregardasitistheultimaterepositoryoflegislativeconfidenceingrantingorwithholdingitsconsenttowithdrawalfromtheprosecution.”
Inparagraph7oftheaforesaidcase,theHon’bleApexCourthasentrustedthepowertothelearnedtrialcourt,whichisprimarilythesupervisorypowerforgrantingconsenttothewithdrawlofacase.
23.Theword”consent”hasbeenusedinSectionsection321Cr.P.C.,whichmeans”toagreetosomething,toallowsomethingtohappen”.Literalconsentmeanstoagreetosomethingtohappenoragreementtodosomething.ThereforethecourtbelowisvestedwithaverylittlejurisdictionwhileexercisingpowersenvisagedunderSectionsection321Cr.P.C.ItcanonlyexamineastowhataretheconsiderationbeforetheStateGovernmentaswellasbeforethepublicprosecutortodeviatefromthenormaltacticsi.e.,toprosecuteoffender/s.Thecourtbelowcannotadjudicateuponthesufficiencyofthematerialastowhethertheprosecutionwouldleadtoconvictionornot.
24.LearnedcounselhasfurtherrelieduponanotherjudgementoftheHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionGhanshyamv.StateofM.P.Andothers[2007(57)ACC305].Therelevantportionofaforesaidcaseisenumeratedbelow:
“ThediscretiontowithdrawfromtheprosecutionisthatofthePublicProsecutorandnoneelse,andso,hecannotsurrenderthatdiscretiontoanyone.ThePublicProsecutormaywithdrawfromtheprosecutionnotmerelyonthegroundofpaucityofevidencebutonotherrelevantfactorsaswellinordertofurtherthebroadendsofjustice,publicorder,peaceandtranquility.”
25.SimilarlyinthecaseofSectionAbdulKarimv.StateofKarnataka[(2000)8SCC,710]theHon’bleApexCourthasopinedthatSectionsection321Cr.P.C.,contemplatesconsentbyacourtinasupervisoryandnotanadjudicatorymannerandthecourtmustseethattheapplicationmovedbyapublicprosecutorforwithdrawlofprosecutionhasbeenproperlymadeingoodfaithintheinterestofpublicpolicyandjusticeandnottothwartorstifletheprocessoflaworsuffersfromsuchimproprietiesorillegalitiesastocausemanifestinjusticeifconsentisgivenbythecourt.Forreadyreference,arelevantportionenvisagedinparagraph18oftheaforesaidjudgementisherebyenunciatedhereinbelow:
“18…..Section321contemplatesconsentbythecourtinasupervisoryandnotanadjudicatorymanner.Whatthecourtmustensureisthattheapplicationforwithdrawalhasbeenproperlymade,afterindependentconsiderationbythePublicProsecutorandinfurtheranceofpublicinterest.Section321enablesthePublicProsecutortowithdrawfromtheprosecutionofanyaccused.ThediscretionexercisableunderSection321isfetteredonlybyaconsentfromthecourtonaconsiderationofthematerialbeforeit.WhatisnecessarytosatisfythesectionistoseethatthePublicProsecutorhasactedingoodfaithandtheexerciseofdiscretionbyhimisproper.”
26.SimilarlyinanotherjudgementonthemattertheApexCourtinthecaseofSectionRahulAgarwalv.RakeshJain[2005(2)SCC377]whilerelyinguponthejudgementofAbdulKarim’sjudgement(Supra)andearlierdecisionoftheConsititutionBenchinSectionSheonandanPaswanv.StateofBihar[1987(1)SCC288],madethefollowingobservationsregardingwithdrawlofcaseunderSectionsection321Cr.P.C.:
“…Whatthecourthastoseeiswhethertheapplicationismadeingoodfaith,intheinterestofpublicpolicyandjusticeandnottothwartorstifletheprocessoflaw.Thecourt,afterconsideringthefactsofthecase,hastoseewhethertheapplicationsuffersfromsuchimproprietiesorillegalitiesaswouldcausemanifestinjusticeifconsentwasgiven.WhenthePublicProsecutormakesanapplicationforwithdrawalaftertakingintoconsiderationallthematerialbeforehim,thecourtmustexerciseitsjudicialdiscretionbyconsideringsuchmaterialbeforehim,thecourtmustexerciseitsjudicialdiscretionbyconsideringsuchmaterialand,onsuchconsideration,musteithergiveconsentordeclineconsent.Thesectionshouldnotbeconstruedtomeanthatthecourthastogiveadetailedreasonedorderwhenitgivesconsent.If,onareadingoftheordergivingconsent,ahighercourtissatisfiedthatsuchconsentwasgivenonanoverallconsiderationofthematerialavailable,theordergivingtheconsenthasnecessarilytobeupheld.Section321contemplatesconsentbythecourtinasupervisoryandnotanadjudicatorymanner.Whatthecourtmustensureisthattheapplicationforwithdrawalhasbeenproperlymade,afterindependentconsiderationbythePublicProsecutortowithdrawfromtheprosecutionofanyaccused.ThediscretionexercisableunderSection321isfetteredonlybyconsentfromthecourtonaconsiderationofthematerialbeforeit.WhatisnecessarytosatisfyistoseethatthePublicProsecutorhasactedingoodfaithandtheexerciseofdiscretionbyhimisproper.”
27.Therefore,onthetouchstonesoftheaforementionedcelebratedjudgementspassedbyHon’bleApexCourtondifferentoccasionsinsimilarsituation,comparingsamewiththefactors,contents,circumstancesofthecase,submissionsofthelearnedcounselforrivalparties,testifyingthevalidityandveracityoftheimpugnedorderdated29.08.2018passedbyI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),Bijnore,thisCourtscreenedouttheentirecaseandpendownthesalientfeaturesofthecase,asbelow:
(i)theapplicantisnotevennamedintheFIRnoranyofthewitnessesdivulgingthenameoftheapplicanteitherintheentiretextoftheFIRorintheirrespectivestatementsgivenduringthecourseofinvestigationtotheeffectthattheapplicantwaseitherovertlyorcovertlyinvolvedinthecommissionoftheoffence.Ratherallthe38witnesses,including16injuredwitnesses,intheirrespectivestatementsrecordedunderSectionsection161Cr.P.C.havestatedthattheynamedapplicantonlyontheheresayofthevillagefolksandfairlyconcededthatinfacttheydidnotseetheapplicantattherelevantpointoftimeandplaceoftheincident.Besidesthis,noincriminatingarticlewasfoundeitherfromthepossessionoftheapplicantoronhispointingout.
(ii)Supplementaryreportdated19.07.2017filedbythepolicehasportrayedacompleteandcategoricalnarrationoftheinvestigationwithregardtothe(non)involvementoftheapplicantbyincorporatingalltheeffectiveevidenceintheinstantcase.
(iii)Atthetopofit,whentheex-MinisterofStateManojParas,whoishimselfanaccusedinCaseCrimeNo.775of2007,underSectionsection376IPC,P.S.Nagina,DistrictBijonorehasexertedallhispressureupontheapplicantfornotpleadingthecaseofinformant-Smt.VinodKumarinthecourtoflawelsetofacedireconsequences.
28.Ontheaforesaidbackground,thisCourthasassessedthelegality/validity/veracityoftheorderimpugneddateddated29.08.2018passedbyI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),Bijnore.
29.Nodoubt,intheunfortunateincidentofthecasethreepersonslosttheirlivesand15personssustainedinjuriesintheincidentdated16.03.2016andthenameoftheapplicantfigureduponthebasisoftherespectivestatementsofthewitnesses,whohavenotevennamedtheapplicantinthetextoftheFIRnortheywereinjuredintheaforesaidincident.ThecomplainantFurkaninitiallymadeastatementbeforethepolicethathewasinformedby[email protected]Mausamwasinvolvedintheallegedincidentbutlateronhewriggledoutfromhisearlierstatementandinsupportofhisstatementgivenatthesecondoccasion,hefiledanaffidavitstatingthereinthatontheinstigationoftheco-villagers,hemadehisfirststatement.Noneofthewitnesses,especiallyShahrukh,ShadabandRizwanmadeanystatementrecordedunderSectionsection161Cr.P.C.,statedanywhereintheirrespectivestatementsthattheyeversawtheapplicantattheplaceofoccurrenceonthefatefulday.
30. LearnedSessionJudgewhilepassingtheorderimpugnedhasventuredintowhelmandadjudicatedthematteronmeritsinsteadofsupervisingthecase,asperlawwhereastherewasnomaterialbeforehimtochallengethatthiswithdrawloftheprosecutionornot;intheinterestofpublicinterestoringoodfaithandinordertomaintainthebroadendsofjustice,publicorder,peaceandtranquilityoritwouldsubversethecaseofpublicinterest.Thereseemsnomaterialforjustifyingthesame.
31.Aperson(hereintheapplicant),whohappenstobealeadingAdvocateinBijnorejudgeshipaswellasthejuniorAdvocatesatBudaunjudgeshipandinvolvedinanumberofwelfareworkforcommonpeopleoutsidethecourtpremises,havingnocriminalantecedent,justbecausehewascontestingacaseagainstanerstwhileMinisterofState,U.P.,whowasinvolvedinacriminalcaseunderSectionsection376IPC,isbeingpenalized,wascompelledtopaythecostforthereasonthathewaslegallyappearingbeforethecourtconcernedforinformantSmt.VinodKumariinCaseCrimeNo.775of2007,underSectionsection376IPChasbeenfastenedintheinstantcase.
32.Therefore,intheaforesaidbackdropofthecircumstances,suchprosecutioncannotbepermittedtoproceedanyfurther.
33.ThisCourtisafraidthatthereasonsembracedbythelearnedSessionJudgewhilepassingtheorderimpugneddateddated29.08.2018,thelearnedI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),BijnoreisdehorsandaccordingtotheguidelinesprovidedbytheApexCourt,inthecaseofRAJENDRAKUMARJAINETC(Supra)theaforesaidorderisliabletobesetaside.
34.Accordingly,theorderdated29.08.2018,thelearnedI-AdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudge(POCSOAct),BijnorepassedinSessionTrialNo.121of2016(SectionStatev.Sansarandothers)arisingoutofCaseCrimeNo.1036of2016,underSectionsections147,Section148,Section149,Section302,Section307,Section452,Section504,Section436,Section337IPCand7oftheSectionCriminalLawAmendmentAct,P.S.KhotwaliShahr,DistrictBijnoreis,hereby,setaside.
35.Ontheaforesaidmise-en-scène,discussionsandcircumstances,boththepetitionsi.e.ApplicationU/S482No.-44691of2018([email protected])andCriminalRevisionNo.3971of2018(SectionStateofU.P.v.Mohd.Furkanandanother)areallowed.
OrderDate:-15.05.2019
shailesh