IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2002 Vishavajeet S/o Shri Adhir Chakraverti R/o Ravindra Nagar, Ward No. 21 Rudrapur & 39 Others . ……….Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Home (Section 2), Uttaranchal, Dehradun 2. Senior Superintendent of Police District Udham Singh Nagar 3. Station House Officer, P.S.Kotwali, Rudrapur 4. Vijay Pal, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar …………Respondents Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate, present for the revisionists. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, with Shri T.C. Agarwal, Additional G.A., present for the state. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against order dated 05.06.2002, passed by Sessions Judge, 2 Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2002, whereby said court has rejected the application moved on behalf the state to withdraw the prosecution. 2. Brief facts, of the case, are that a murder of one Anil Mandal is said to have been committed within the limits of Police Station Rudrapur, in respect of which crime no. 1007 of 2000, was registered against certain accused(not revisionists) . It appears that during investigation the public was agitating on account of commission of murder of Anil Mandal on 09.10.2000. It is said some 800- 900 members of public armed with 'LATHIS' and 'DANDAS' came on the street to press the arrest of the culprits, and in doing so, police personnel received injuries and the police vehicle also got damaged. It is this incident which was registered as crime no. 1009 of 2000, in which forty present petitioners were made accused by the police, and charge sheet was filed. After committal, Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2002, was registered in said case, and application 6A was moved by the prosecution, through District Government Counsel (Criminal) (for short D.G.C. Crl.) seeking 3 permission to withdraw the case. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it is not mentioned in the application that it was moved in the public interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if, it was not mentioned in the application by the DGC (criminal) that prosecution is being withdrawn in public interest , the trial court could have seen the same from the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the relevant provision of law applicable to the case. Section 321 of Cr.P.C., reads as under:- “ Withdrawal from prosecution:- The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,- (a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, 4 the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences; (b) if it made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences: Provided that where such offence- (i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or (ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or (iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or (iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to 5 withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution.” 5. There is U.P. State Amendment made in the aforesaid provision vide U.P. Act, 18 of 1991 w.e.f., 16.02.1991, which provides that under section 321, after after the words “in charge of a case may” the words “ on the written permission of the State Government to that effect” (which shall be filed in court) shall be inserted. It is not disputed in the present case that the State Government had given the permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case. 6. As provided in Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. State AIR 1980, SC 1510, and State of Orissa vs. Chandrika Mohapatra, AIR 1977 SC 903, it is settled principle of law that the court has responsibility to examine the application for withdrawal of the prosecution before granting the permission. Undoubtedly, paramount consideration in such kinds of cases is the interest of administration of justice. In the present case, the 6 public was admittedly agitating , and pressing the police administration to arrest culprits in connection with the murder of one Anil Mandal. They had no personal motive against the policemen to settle the score. In the circumstances of the case, if the State Government decided to withdraw the prosecution for which DGC (criminal)/ Public Prosecutor moved application before the trial court, it cannot be said that it was not in public interest to withdraw the case. 7. For the reasons, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application for withdrawal of prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2002.Therefore, revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.06.2002, passed in aforesaid Sessions Trial No. is set aside. The application seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution stands allowed. Since charge had not been framed against the revisionists who were accused in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2002, they stand discharged. (This order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties in respect of order dated 05.06.2002,passed by Sessions Judge, 7 Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2001, which relates to the rejection of application filed by prosecution for withdrawal of the prosecution in case no. 1002 of 2001 State vs. Subhash Chandra and others under section 302 IPC, Police Station Rudrapur). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 06.12.2010