Crl. Revision No. 848 of 2008 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) Criminal Revision No. 848 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.9.2011. L.D. (Lakshman Dass) Kataria ........Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents (2) Criminal Revision No. 951 of 2008 State of Haryana ........Petitioner Vs. L.D.Kataria and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. (in Criminal Revision No. 848 of 2008) and for the respondents (in Criminal Revision No. 951 of 2008) Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for the respondents (in Criminal Revision No. 848 of 2008) and for the petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 951 of 2008) Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 (in Criminal Revision No. 848 of 2008) ..... SABINA, J. Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the state as well as the petitioner L.d.Kataria have sought quashing of the order dated 18.3.2008 Crl. Revision No. 848 of 2008 (O&M) -2 - whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) was dismissed. Admittedly, Parvin Mittal, co-accused had faced the trial and he has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 22.2.2010. The trial court held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused Parvin Mittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the main accused Parvin Mittal, through whom the petitioner was to get the money in question, has been acquitted by the trial court, the prosecution case was liable to fail against the petitioner also. The petitioner had appeared before the trial court during trial but PW-3 Pawan Kumar Gupta, PW-4 Kuldip Gupta had failed to identify the petitioner as an accused. As per Annexures P-2 to P-4, PWs Brij Bhushan, Pawan Kumar Gupta and Kuldip Kumar (complainant) had stated before the trial court that they had no objection if the prosecution was withdrawn qua the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 has not opposed the petition. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to allow the petition. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2008 is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner is allowed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2011 Gurpreet