IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-206 of 2008 Date of Order: 08.04.2008 State of Haryana ...Petitioner Versus Kashmiri Lal son of Sant Lal ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 16.03.2007 whereby in a revision filed by the petitioner the order dated 07.02.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, rejecting the application filed by the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution was upheld. Respondent is an accused in FIR No. 272 dated 23.04.2002 registered at Police Station City , Rohtak under Sections 468/420/471 IPC. Initially after investigation the police submitted cancellation report before the Illaqa Magistrate. However, disagreeing with the same further investigation was directed. Thereafter challan was presented against the respondent under Sections 420/468/471 IPC on 07.05.2004. However, more than one year thereafter on 17.08.2005 an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate finding the same to be not bonafide vide order dated 07.02.2006. Even before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner failed in revision filed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Criminal Misc. No. M-206 of 2008 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition on two counts. Firstly on maintainability and secondly even on merits. The petitioner has already availed of remedy of revision against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawal of prosecution. The revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding no substance therein. The second revision is clearly barred under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Even on merit of the case, it is evident that firstly after registration of the FIR, the petitioner submitted cancellation report, which was not accepted and further investigation was ordered. Thereafter challan was presented. After more than one year the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution, which was not found to be bonafide. From the facts on record, it is evident that somehow or the other the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the respondent but the manner in which the petitioner is conducting the case cannot be accepted and it cannot be permitted to withdraw the prosecution once even the earlier report submitted by them for cancelaltion of FIR was not accepted. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. March 08, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) nt JUDGE