IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.886 of 1995 Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 Mohinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Order passed by Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 8.11.1995, while allowing the application of the State for withdrawal from prosecution, has been challenged by complainant-Mohinder Kaur by filing the present revision. FIR No.77 dated 10.5.1994 under Section 376 IPC was registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana at the instance of the petitioner against accused-respondent No.2. On 24.7.1995, an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. (for short 'the Code') was moved by the State of Punjab for permission to withdraw from prosecution. It was stated in the said application that only a doctor had been examined and in the public interest, the Public Prosecutor was satisfied that no public interest was going to be served by continuing the criminal Criminal Revision No.886 of 1995 -2- prosecution of accused-respondent No.2 and, accordingly, he prayed for withdrawal from prosecution of the case. Upon notice of the application, the complainant filed her written reply, wherein she raised the objection that the application under Section 321 of the Code did not indicate as to what public interest was going to be served by the withdrawal of the case. Subsequent thereto, the Sate of Punjab filed an application dated 26.8.1995 in continuation of the application dated 24.7.1995 stating therein that the grounds of withdrawal could not be mentioned in the earlier application inadvertently. According to the Public Prosecutor the accused had moved an application for reinvestigation which was signed by 3 MLAs, 25 Councillors and about 200 respectables before the Chief Minister of Punjab and the Chief Minister had ordered the reinvestigation of the case by the Crime Branch and Shri H.R. Chadha, IPS, DIG (Crime) and D.S. Randhawa, S.P.(Crime) of the Women Cell had reinvestigated the case and reported that the case was a made up one at the instance of local police officers and accused was innocent. It was also mentioned that taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, the Home Department had decided to withdraw the case from the Court in public interest vide letter dated 13.7.1995 under the order of Chief Minister of Punjab and, therefore, the Public Prosecutor was satisfied of the innocence of the accused. Further that it would not be in public interest to try the accused on false evidence. Criminal Revision No.886 of 1995 -3- The application dated 26.8.1995 filed by the State of Punjab was again opposed by the complainant on the ground that the witnesses of the prosecution were being threatened by the accused and some police officers at his behest. It was also mentioned that an enquiry into the allegations of Swaran Singh, prosecution witness, was conducted by Shri S. Chatopadhayaya, IPS, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Operation), Punjab, Chandigarh who had submitted an adverse report and, accordingly, it was prayed that the application for permission to withdraw from prosecution be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court had accepted the application filed by the Public Prosecutor and permitted the withdrawal of prosecution against the accused-respondent. I have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of second investigation, which was conducted by the Crime Branch on an application moved by the accused before the Chief Minister of Punjab, it surfaced that there existed some possibility of the accused having been falsely roped in the case. Such an inference could be drawn from the fact that even the complainant, who had appeared before the officers, during re-investigation had stated that she did not make any allegation implicating the accused-respondent and she had committed the blunder in greed of getting a free plot from him. She had also denied the authenticity of affidavit dated 13.8.1994 executed Criminal Revision No.886 of 1995 -4- by her. From the file, it is noticed that though Director General of Police, Punjab had indicated his disinclination for withdrawal from the prosecution but his view was over-ruled by the Chief Minister of Punjab and, accordingly, Public Prosecutor had formed the opinion that taking into consideration all the facts, there was no need to go ahead with the prosecution of the case on the basis of false evidence. After holding that the State was the master of litigation in criminal cases, by exercise of functions under Section 321 of the Code, the accountability of the person or persons did not disappear, the trial Court observed that a private complaint could still be filed if the complainant was aggrieved by the withdrawal of the prosecution, although at the same time running the possible risk of a suit for malicious prosecution, in case the complaint was found to be bereft of any truth. I agree with the findings arrived at by the trial Court in accepting the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal of prosecution against the accused- respondent. Resultantly, there is no merit in the revision, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) May 07, 2010 JUDGE satish