HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT APPEAL No.664 of 2009 DATE:10-11-2010 BETWEEN Smt.D.Rama Bharathi & Others …Appellants AND Dr.D.Bharathi & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT APPEAL No.664 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 18.4.2009 passed in W.P.20389 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the G.O.Rt.No.1646 Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 18.9.2006 addressing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution against the writ appellants-respondents 6 to 8 in the writ petition (A.1 to A.3). This case amply demonstrates the exploitation of the loopholes in the legal system and in the process thwarting the judicial process at all levels. On a private complaint lodged by the writ petitioner before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, the Magistrate forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the said complaint, the police of Gopalapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.263 of 2001 against the writ appellants and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465 read with 34 IPC and took up the investigation. After due investigation, police laid the charge sheet which prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 139, 468, 471, 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. On filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took the case on file in C.C.No.773 of 2003 and later it was transferred to the court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally and renumbered as C.C.No.387 of 2006. Earlier to the transfer, the writ appellants filed Crl.M.P.No.2092 of 2003 while the other accused-A.4 and A.5 filed Crl.M.P.No.3439 of 2003 and A.6 filed Crl.M.P.No.3440 of 2003 seeking their discharge from the prosecution. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed all the applications by common order, dated 9.12.2003. Aggrieved by the orders, dated 9.12.2003 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3439 of 2003, A.4 and A.5 filed Crl.R.P.No.84 of 2004 before the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. On dismissal of the said revision on 12.5.2004, the appellants herein approached this Court by filing Crl.R.C.No.9 of 2004 against the very same common order dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.2092 of 2003, however, the said Crl.R.C. was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.3.2005. Thereafter A.4 and A.5 filed Crl.P.No.1654 of 2005 challenging the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.84 of 2004, dated 12.5.2004, in which, initially this Court stayed the trial, but later vacated the same. Thereafter A.1-appellant No.1 herein filed Crl.P.No.4462 of 2005 challenging the orders of the learned Magistrate passed in Crl.M.P.No.3063 of 2005 and sought to quash the same against her contending that she was a juvenile at the time of committing the offence. The said Criminal Petition was dismissed on 26.7.2006. On dismissal of the same, Transfer Miscellaneous Petition No.59 of 2006 was filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge attributing bias to the Presiding Officer of the Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and obtained transfer of the case to the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. On such transfer, the C.C. was renumbered as C.C.No.387 of 2006. Meanwhile the de facto complainant-first respondent, who is the writ petitioner filed Crl.P.No.3025 of 2005 for a direction to the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad to commence the trial in C.C.No.773 of 2003 and to record her evidence stating that she is aged about 80 years and the matter required to be disposed of expeditiously. This Court (AGR,J) disposed of the Criminal Petition on 10.8.2005 directing the Magistrate to ensure the commencement of trial in C.C.No.773 of 2003 by recording the evidence on either side and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in the light of the guidelines issued by this Court in Circular, dated 26.7.2005. On issuing such direction, the second respondent- State issued the impugned G.O.Rt.No.1646 Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 18.9.2006 which was extracted by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. Challenging the said G.O., the de facto complainant-first respondent herein filed W.P.No.20389 of 2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, G.O.Rt.No.2300, Home Department, dated 3.12.2008 was issued by the second respondent-State whereby the paragraph 2 of the G.O.Rt.No.1646 was amended and the peremptory direction to be addressed by the Public Prosecutor by the District Collector was substituted to read that the Collector should “address the Public Prosecutor concerned for filing a petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C.” In view of the said amendment, the writ petitioner filed WPMP.No.27015 of 2007 to bring on record certain documents as additional material on record; and also filed WPMP.No.919 of 2009 to bring on record the subsequent G.O.Rt.No.2300, dated 3.12.2008 issued by the second respondent-State. Both the WPMPs were allowed. Pursuant to the directions issued in WPMP.No.27015 of 2007, the current file relating to the issuance of the impugned G.O. has been produced which has been perused by the learned single Judge and the analysis of the current file has also been exhaustively dealt in the impugned judgment which led to issuance of the G.O. The learned single Judge analyzed the note file issued by the Government exhaustively apart from the law relating to power of withdrawal of prosecution envisaged under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and was of the view that issuance of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.1646, dated 18.9.2006 is arbitrary, perverse, illegal and that it records no reasons and sets out no justification for addressing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution against the writ appellants and that the same is vitiated on account of total non-application of mind and for reliance on the wholly unauthorized and incompetent opinion of the Public Prosecutor Mr.M.Kishore Kumar, purportedly, dated 11.2.2005. It was held that the G.O. is vitiated since it records that the State Government has decided to withdraw from the prosecution, a decision which is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government, being vested exclusively in the Public Prosecutor concerned, under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and accordingly quashed the impugned G.O.Rt. with a direction that the trial in C.C.No.387 of 2006 before the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally and in C.C.No.294 of 2006 on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Juvenile) be taken up forthwith and concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 6 to 8 in the writ petition, who are A.1 to A.3, filed the present writ appeal. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the appellants contends that the Government by issuing subsequent G.O.Rt.No.2300, dated 3.12.2008 amended G.O.Rt.No.1646 by virtue of which, the peremptory direction to be addressed by the Public Prosecutor by the District Collector is substituted to read that the Collector should “address the Public Prosecutor concerned for filing a petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and therefore, quashing of the G.O.Rt.No.1646 which is now amended does not arise. It is contended that the intensity of the G.O.Rt. No.1646 has been diluted by carrying out the amendment by way of G.O.Rt.No.2300 and therefore, it is the exclusive prerogative of the Public Prosecutor to consider the filing of the application for withdrawal of the prosecution, which is in tune with the statutory mandate contained under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Further the imposition of the costs by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition is not at all warranted. We do not see any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. When the writ petitioner lodged a private complaint before the Magistrate, the Magistrate forwarded the same to the police for investigation and that the police after due investigation laid the charge sheet, which prima facie discloses commission of various offences as specified therein. The appellants having unsuccessful in obtaining the discharge from the charges in the revisional Court as well as this Court, adopted dilated tactics to delay the proceedings. Vexed with the dilated tactics adopted by the appellants, the de facto complainant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for expeditious disposal of the criminal case, which was taken on file on police filing the charge sheet against the appellants. This Court after hearing the State, directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the Criminal Case within a time frame after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. Therefore, the Magistrate is under obligation to comply with the directions issued by this Court by disposing of the Criminal Case. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the power/decision to withdraw from the prosecution as set out i n Subhash Chander v. The State and Others[1] has been exhaustively dealt with by the learned single Judge apart from the earlier decisions rendered in M.N.Sankaranarayana Nair v. P.V.Balakrishnan[2]; State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey[3]; Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar[4]; Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Spl. Police Establishment and Others[5]. It is unnecessary for us to repeat the principles that have been exhaustively dealt with by the learned single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge. The facts as depicted in the impugned judgment do not warrant withdrawal of the prosecution by the Public Prosecutor and as directed by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1646 as amended by G.O.Rt.No.2300. In spite of the directions of this Court for early disposal of the criminal case, the appellants successfully delayed the proceedings by one way or the other. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge for imposing the costs in the circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court. We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is directed that the trial in C.C.No.387 of 2006 pending on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally and in C.C.No.294 of 2006 pending on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Juvenile) be taken up forthwith and concluded expeditiously. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. NOVEMBER 10, 2010 Note: Office to communicate a copy of this order to: (1) II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally & (2) V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Juvenile) (B/o) Tsr. [1] AIR 1980 SC 423 [2] AIR 1972 SC 496 [3] AIR 1957 SC 389 [4] AIR 1977 SC 2265 [5] AIR 1980 SC 1510