IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2381 of 2009 Date of decision : October 27, 2009 State of Punjab ....Petitioner versus Kuldeep Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) State of Punjab has filed this revision petition impugning order dated 30.5.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, thereby dismissing prosecution application filed under section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for withdrawal of case FIR No. 73 dated 11.10.2006, under sections 124-A, 302, 307, 353, 435, 427, 186, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala against all the accused Kuldeep Singh etc. Initially challan was presented under sections 124-A, 302, 307, 353, 435, 427, 186, 148 and 149 IPC on the allegations that revenue and police officials were present at the spot for demarcation of Gurdwara Nanaksar Patti Bir Singh, Bhadaur. Accused persons armed with deadly weapons caused obstruction in the demarcation proceedings and burnt Criminal Revision No. 2381 of 2009 -2- government and private vehicles and damaged other public property. The accused also attacked police officials with intent to kill them. One Ruban Masih was also murdered by the accused labelling him as tout of the police. On the basis of the said challan, charge under sections 302, 435, 353, 332, 333 and 148 IPC has already been framed against the accused. Subsequently, the police presented supplementary challan against the accused for diluted offences under sections 304-A, 332, 333, 353, 435 and 148 IPC read with section 149 IPC. In application under section 321 Cr.P.C., it was alleged that Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab recommended withdrawal of the case against all the accused. Additional Public Prosecutor also applied his mind and was of the opinion that withdrawal from prosecution of the case was in public interest to maintain peace and social harmony. I have heard learned State counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that dispute was regarding demarcation of Gurdwara property and to maintain peace and harmony, it is in public interest to withdraw from the prosecution of the case. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to how withdrawal from prosecution of the case would achieve the end of maintaining public peace and social harmony. The accused are being prosecuted for serious offences including offence of murder under section 302 IPC, offence of causing grievous hurt to public servants with aim to Criminal Revision No. 2381 of 2009 -3- obstruct them from performing official duty, causing destruction of property by fire and other offences. These are very serious offences. Charge has already been framed for the said offences. There is no material on record to depict as to what public interest would be served by withdrawing from the prosecution of the case for such serious offences. On the other hand, the accused took the law into their own hands and attacked police officials as well as revenue officials who were discharging their official duties. One innocent person also lost his life at the hands of accused. Government as well as private vehicles were burnt. Other public property was also destroyed. Such actions of mob violence are occurring very frequently, probably because lenient view is taken as in the instant case State is seeking withdrawal from prosecution of the case. It would encourage acts of such mob violence when police officials and revenue officials are not safe and government property is destroyed with impunity. No public interest can be served by withdrawal from prosecution of the case. On the other hand such acts of mob violence should be curbed with iron hands and deterrent punishment. No justification for withdrawal from the prosecution is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul Agarwal versus Rakesh Jain and another, (2005) ACR 108. It was observed therein that withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in the interest of justice. If the case is likely to end in acquittal and continuance of the case is only causing severe harassment to the accused or if the withdrawal of the prosecution is likely to bury the dispute Criminal Revision No. 2381 of 2009 -4- and bring harmony between the parties, the court may allow withdrawal of the prosecution. However, the instant case is not covered by these parameters. Moreover, another FIR No. 72 was also lodged regarding the same occurrence and learned State counsel is not even aware if the withdrawal of prosecution is also being sought in the said FIR or not. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of trial Judge. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 27, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'