THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.1125 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is ﬁled to quash the orders of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Crl.P.No.994 of 2009 in C.C.No.24 of 2007. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case and while the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of police, at Kamareddy, Nizamabad district he has demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant in Cr.No.21 of 2006 for registering a case under Section.366-A IPC when the daughter of the complainant is said to have been abducted. The complainant was not willing and he informed the concerned ACB oﬃcials and a trap was laid and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was said to have been recovered. Thereafter, after due investigation and sanction, the charge sheet was ﬁled in C.C.No.24 of 2007. While the mater stood thus and at the time of trial, the Government is said to have issued G.O.Ms.No.268, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 23- 05-2009 whereunder the permission was granted to withdraw the case against the Petitioner herein and keeping in mind his good work in anti-extremist ﬁeld and leaving the matter to be decided before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. On the basis of it, the Public Prosecutor has ﬁled a memo and after hearing the contentions, the learned Judge has dismissed the application and refused to grant permission for withdrawal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present application is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the learned judge suﬀers from any inﬁrmity and proceedings are permitted to be withdrawn under Section.321 Cr.P.C? POINT:- The order of the lower court clearly goes to show that after considering the several decisions and undisputed settled principles of law that whenever an application under Section.321 C.P.C. is filed by the Public Prosecutor, he should have act on his own accord and not at the instance of the other agency or the Government and as a memo ﬁled by the Public Prosecutor does not disclose valid reasons of his application of mind and also the valid reasons as to why the prosecution has to be withdrawn, has dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the memo ﬁled by the Public Prosecutor does not say the particulars of the reasons, still it shows that he has applied his mind and consequently there cannot be said to be any inﬁrmity. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute about the legal proposition that the Public Prosecutor should independently act and it is his opinion that has to be taken into consideration. In this case, evidently, in order to come to a conclusion the Public Prosecutor has to say that the evidence duly collected during the investigation is improper or whether the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is activated by ill-motive by the complainant. But, none of the reasons are mentioned in the said memo. Even the order passed by the Government for permitting to withdraw the case keeps the option of referring the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and thereby indicating that there is truth in the allegation in the complaint investigated by the police. It is for the Government or the ACB to take a decision as to whether they should go for a prosecution or for a departmental inquiry at the earliest point of time and when once having taken a decision to go for prosecution of the accused, then at a later point of time, it is not permissible for them to say that the criminal prosecution is to be withdrawn and the matter shall be referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Therefore, the very contention in the petition shows that the case against the petitioner is not devoid of merits and it requires an enquiry. That being so, it cannot be said that the Public Prosecutor has given valid reasons for withdrawal of the case and, therefore, at this stage and when it is a case of trap, which was conducted by the police and proved to be positive, it is not a case for permission to withdraw the case. There are absolutely no merits in the petition and the order passed by the learned Judge does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 08-12-2011 TSNR