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