THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4981 AND 4982 OF 2011 Date: 27.06.2011 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4981 OF 2011 Kum. M.Radha and another …..Petitioners And Kandi Suryanarayana and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4982 OF 2011 Between: D.Venkat Rao …..Petitioner And Kandi Suryanarayana and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4981 AND 4982 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The point involved in both these Criminal Petitions which are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is same and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.4981 of 2011 are A-4 and A-5 in C.C.1504 of 2009 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4982 of 2011 is A-4 in C.C.No.1506 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli (trial Court). They filed these petitions for quashing the proceedings against them in the said criminal cases. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor at length at the admission stage itself. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that one K.Suryanarayana, I.F.S. and the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam Division addressed letters to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sathupalli instructing him to withdraw the cases against the petitioners in both these petitions and therefore, both the cases against these petitioners should be quashed. It is seen from the material papers filed by the counsel for the petitioners that the above Divisional Forest Officer addressed two separate letters both dated 10.2.2011 to the concerned prosecuting officer instructing him to withdraw the cases. This is not disputed. 4. It may however be noted that proceedings in criminal cases cannot be quashed by this court on the strength of the above letters for this reason. Section 321 Cr.P.C. which deals with withdrawal of prosecution would show that the Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case, can withdraw a criminal case only with the consent of the court before which it is pending. It may be noted that even if the Prosecutor decides to withdraw the case in his own discretion, still the consent of the court is necessary. Thus, whether withdrawal should be permitted or not in the present cases should in principle be decided by the trial Court and if this Court interferes under 482 Cr.P.C., that would only amount to this Court violating the law. 5. There is also another reason for which this first point cannot be accepted. It may be noted that in both the letters dated 10.2.2011 addressed to the Public Prosecutor, the above mentioned Forest Official informed the Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal cases if it is possible as per law. Thus, the Prosecuting Officer has to decide whether it is permissible for withdrawing the case in accordance with law and later on the trial Court should also consent for it. Hence, this is also a ground for rejecting this point. 6. The other point relates to the merits of the matter in both the cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the charge sheets (copies filed by him) and argued that the said averments even if believed, do not disclose any offences against these petitioners and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed. It is difficult to accept this plea also. It may be noted that charges relate to misappropriation of Government money in both the cases. The allegations of complicity of these petitioners are also found in the charge sheets. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in these petitions as they have to be decided on evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon MANOJ SHARMA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS[1] and contended that both these petitions should be allowed on the principles laid down in the said decision. The said decision is not applicable or relevant to the above two points and is therefore not considered. 7. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 27th June, 2011. Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4981 AND 4982 of 2011 DATE: 27.06.2011 [1] (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1