THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008, Crl.R.C.No.1960 of 2007 AND Crl.R.C.No.1962 of 2007 Date:09.11.2010 Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008 Between: Siriyala Chandra Rao …Petitioner And Dr.Beeraka Chandraskhar and another …Respondents Crl.R.C.No.1960 of 2007 Between: Dr.Beeraka Chandra Sekhar …Petitioner And Dwarampudi Chandra Sekhar Reddy and others …Respondents Crl.R.C.No.1962 of 2007 Between: Dr.Beeraka Chandra Sekhar …Petitioner And Siriyala Chandra Rao and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008, Crl.R.C.No.1960 of 2007 AND Crl.R.C.No.1962 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The de facto complainant in C.C.No.297 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in Crime No.52 of 2004 and in C.C.No.298 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in Crime No.53 of 2004 filed Crl.R.C.Nos.1960 of 2007 and 1962 of 2007 to set aside the orders of discharging the accused therein passed by the learned Magistrate pursuant to the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. withdrawing the respective cases. Whereas the sole accused in C.C.No.31 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada filed Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking postponement of trial in C.C.No.31 of 2005 till the disposal of Crl.R.C.No.1960 of 2007 which is pending before this Court. The question to be decided in all these three cases is as to whether the orders of discharge passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in C.C.Nos.297 of 2008 and 298 of 2005 pursuant to the petitions filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. discharging the accused can be sustained in law. Therefore, all the cases are disposed of by the following common order. I have heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent State and Sri J.Srinivas Rao, the learned counsel for first respondent in Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008 and for petitioner in both Crl.R.C.Nos.1960 of 2007 and 1962 of 2007. The incidents in all the three cases allegedly occurred when the de facto complainant who was the Chairperson of the Kakinada Municipal Corporation joined the Telugu Desam Party having secured the post of Chairperson contesting on behalf of the Congress-I party. All the accused are said to be either the leaders/corporators/workers of the Congress-I party. Infuriated by the act of de facto complainant Dr.Beeraka Chandrasekhar jumping from Congress-I party to T.D.P. involved in the acts of violence and three different cases have been filed in respect of the incidents occurred. It was alleged by the prosecution in C.C.No.297 of 2005 that on 27.04.2004 at about 11 a.m. while the de facto complainant was holding a press meet in his chambers in the office of Municipal Corporation which was being live telecast by a local T.V. channel and while several people were present, A-1 to A-20 in the said case formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons forcibly entered into the chambers and threatened the de facto complainant to do away with his life within two days. A-1 and A-3 beat him with chappals, some other accused threw some coins on him, abused him in filthy language and demanded him to resign for the post of Chairperson. Thereafter, all the accused ransacked the corporation office, destroyed the office furniture, windows, telephone etc. which is the property of government. The police basing on the report of de facto complainant, registered a case in Cr.No.52 of 2004 alleging commission of offences under Sections 147, 323, 506, 186 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and after completing investigation, filed charge sheet. In C.C.No.298 of 2005 it was alleged by the prosecution that on 27.04.2004 at 5 p.m. all the accused therein arming with deadly weapons formed themselves into unlawful assembly, trespassed into the hospital-cum- residence of the de facto complainant, damaged the glass windows, tubelights, glass doors, two cars, and the total damage was estimated approximately at Rs.2 lakhs. On the report lodged by the de facto complainant on the same date at 10 p.m., the police registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2004 alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 427 r/w 149 of IPC and after completing investigation, filed charge sheet. In C.C.No.31 of 2005 it was alleged by the prosecution that on 27.04.2004 the accused therein who is a ward councilor abused the de facto complainant in filthy language, assaulted him and slapped on his cheek and caused injury to him. The motive for committing all the above mentioned criminal acts was said to be to dislodge the de facto complainant from the post of Chairperson of Municipal Corporation, Kakinada by using violence against him and damage to public property and also the property belonging to him. While the C.C.Nos.297 of 2005 and 298 of2005 were pending before the learned Magistrate, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1057 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 27.07.2007 by directing the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District to instruct the Public Prosecutor concerned to file a petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution against the accused specified therein. It is mentioned in the G.O. that the withdrawal order was made because there is no public interest affected in these cases. Thereafter, on the instructions of the District Magistrate, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned filed petitions under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of the cases before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate accepting the said petitions discharged the accused. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in revision cases that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor merely acted at the behest of the government, he did not apply his mind and he did not assign any reasons which prompted withdrawal of cases, similarly, the learned Magistrate also without recording any sufficient reasons passed the orders of discharge mechanically and the impugned orders reveal non- application of mind by the learned Magistrate also and they being prompted by political considerations and not in the public interest, are liable to be set aside in the revision cases. I have gone through the contents of the charge sheet in all the cases. It is not possible to accept the contention of the accused/respondents that the withdrawal of the cases is in public interest and to remove the differences between the rival groups. Further, the incident alleged exhibited deliberate violence resorted to by the accused therein including the act of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation damaging the public property in the corporation office and also the property of the de facto complainant in his clinic as well as in his house. Moreover, the impugned G.O. issued by the Government does not specify any reasons for withdrawing the prosecution. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who made the applications under Section 321 Cr.P.C. also does not indicate any reasons showing that the withdrawal of the prosecution is in public interest. It also does not appear that he had independently applied his mind but seems to have only acted as per the directions of the Government. The learned Magistrate also seems to have accorded consent without examining the nature of the offences alleged, it’s gravity and the fact that either the G.O. issued by the government or the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor are devoid of any reasons. The order passed by the learned Magistrate also does not contain any reasons for according consent for withdrawal of the cases. It is obvious that, absolutely no reasons have been furnished either by the Public Prosecutor or by the Court below. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside in these revision cases. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused would submit alternatively that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitions filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the orders passed thereon by the learned Magistrate are lacking in reasons, the Public Prosecutor may be permitted to make a fresh application of withdrawal containing adequate reasons. I do not think that it is appropriate on the part of this Court to give a positive finding that the Public Prosecutor can move a fresh application. If law permits such a course, the learned Public Prosecutor can move a fresh application which would be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. For what all stated hereinabove, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.Nos.297 of 2005 and 298 of 2005 discharging the accused are set aside. Accordingly, Crl.R.C.Nos.1960 of 2007 and 1962 of 2007 are allowed. Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008 is dismissed. _______________ Date:09.11.2010. R. KANTHA RAO, J ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.2373 of 2008, Crl.R.C.No.1960 of 2007 AND Crl.R.C.No.1962 of 2007 DATE:09.11.2010