Criminal Revision No. 520 of 1992 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 520 of 1992 Date of Decision: 04.02.2008 Smt. Gurmit Kaur …Petitioner Versus State (U.T. Chandigarh) and Others …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate Standing counsel for U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 21. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, FIR No. 147 of 1989 was registered at Police Station Manimajra, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 and 506 IPC. There was some dispute over a piece of land. At the stage of framing of charges before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, an application was filed by the Public Prosecution seeking withdrawal of the case. This application was disallowed on 28.7.1991. The State filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, aggrieved against the impugned order of the learned Judicial Criminal Revision No. 520 of 1992 2 Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby he had not accepted the application of the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from the prosecution. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, on 1.2.1992 accepted the revision petition and allowed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- “7. That Public Prosecutor is Incharge of the case and once he is satisfied that it is in the interest of justice that he should be permitted to withdraw from the case, there have to be strong reasons for the Court to disallow such a request. In the present case, the dispute between the parties was basically over the piece of land which accused Harjinder Singh etc. had purchased from Maharaja of Faridkot. They got the possession of the property so purchased and, therefore, there cannot prima facie a case of the accused having committed criminal trespass over the land owned and possessed by them. In the report the complainant had not named all the accused and after naming a few of them stated that they were accompanied by 20-25 persons. The learned counsel for the complainant had nothing to challenge the satisfaction of the learned Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the case. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case where the Public Prosecutor should be allowed to withdraw from the case. Accordingly, the request of the prosecution in this behalf is allowed”. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant. 20 persons have been arrayed as respondents. Occurrence took place about 19 years Criminal Revision No. 520 of 1992 3 ago. I am conscious of he fact that if after 19 years of the occurrence the order is set aside trial will have to commence afresh. 19 years is sufficient long period. Since the dispute was over the land, in case the order is set aside peace, amity and harmony which is prevailing may not be disturbed. Furthermore, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot set aside the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge as the same is not perverse. The view formulated by learned Additional Sessions Judge is one view which can be taken. Therefore, in revisional jurisdiction, I will be hesitant to substitute my opinion for the opinion of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order as the revision filed by the State was accepted. He has stated that order of learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from no infirmity and illegality. Taking totality of the circumstances and reasons stated above, no interference is called for and the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 4, 2008 “DK