Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Sharan Singh S/O Sh. Nathi Singh ... on 17 January, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Petitioner Versus
1. Ram Sharan Singh S/o Sh. Nathi Singh, R/o 91, Tulip, Gaj Raj Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
2. G.s. Sandhu S/o Sh. A.s. Sandhu, R/o 5/15, Sfs, Mansarovar, Jaipur
3. Nishkam Diwakar S/o Brijmohan Diwakar, R/o Flat No. 204, Vrindavan Apartments, Sri Gopal Nagar, Jaipur 302019
4. Omkar Mal Saini S/o Sh. Jeewan Ram Saini, R/o A 199, Dadu Dayal Nagar, Iscon Road, Near Mansarover, Jaipur 302020
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 114/2022 G.s. Sandhu S/o A.s. Sandhu, R/o 5/15, Sfs Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Ram Sharan Singh S/o Sh. Nathi Singh, R/o 91, Tulip Gaj Raj Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 115/2022 Nishkam Diwakar S/o B.m Diwakar, Residence Of Flat No. 204, Vrindavan Apartment, Sri Gopal Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Ram Sharan Singh S/o Sh. Nathi Singh, R/o 91, Tulif, Gaj Raj Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 131/2022 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (2 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] Onkar Mal Saini Son Of Late Shri Jeevan Ram Saini, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of A-199, Dadu Dayal Nagar, Iskon Road, Near Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302020
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor
2. Ram Saran Singh Son Of Shri Nathi Singh, Resident Of 91, Tulip Gajraj Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Major R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., AAG with Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Chandra Vikram Singh Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA-
cum-AAG with Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, P.P. Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Naman Yadav, Mr. Hemang Singh, Mr. Saurabh Yadav Mr. Saransh Saini, Adv. with Mr. Vinod Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Chaudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Judgment JUDGMENT RESERVED ON ::: 04.01.2023 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17.01.2023 The present criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-state and the accused-petitioners under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, No.4, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Regular Case No. 01/2021 whereby the application moved by the public prosecutor for withdrawal of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (3 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] prosecution against the respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 321 CrPC was rejected.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Ram Sharan Singh filed a complaint regarding private agricultural land and a Preliminary Enquiry No. PE-15/2014 was registered by the ACB on 26.03.2014. Then, an FIR bearing No. 422/2014 came to be filed at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur under Sections 109, 420, 457, 471 and 120-B of IPC and section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A charge sheet was eventually filed on 26.11.2015 in the case against the accused Nishkam Diwakar and against one Shailendra Garg while investigation was ongoing under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code against G.S. Sandhu, Omkar Mal Saini and three other individuals. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 08.05.2016 stating that while the investigation against accused Shanti Dhariwal and N.L. Meena is still underway under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, offences were made out against accused G.S. Sandhu and Omkar Mal Saini and two other individuals named Vijay Mehta and Anil Kumar Agarwal. Thereafter, co-accused N.L. Meena and Shanti Dhariwal were the subject of a second supplementary report which was submitted on 12.06.2019 which was followed by a closure report filed against them while the investigation was kept pending against co-accused Lalit Panwar. The accused G.S. Sandhu and Nishkam Diwakar made a representation to the State stating that prosecution against them should be dropped under Section 321 CrPC in view of the subsequent and final conclusions reached by (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (4 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] the Investigating Agency. The representation was examined by the UDH department and the department recorded the following findings on 19.08.2019:
i) The allotment letter was in favour of Ganpati Construction it was eligible for membership of the society even in accordance with the Rajasthan Co-
operative Societies Act.
ii) The land was mutated in favour of JDA under Section 90 B (1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, therefore, there was no other option left with the JDA but to regularise/allot the land in the person interested because as per the prevailing rule, the land cannot be used for Government or any other purpose.
iii) Neither the state government nor the JDA have suffered any losses.
On 04.09.2020, after reviewing the representation, a state-level committee was formed under the Home Department to look into the matter and to render its suitable, legal opinion. After consideration, the committee gave its findings as under:
a) that the patta granted in favour of the firm had been revoked;
b) there has been no loss to the State Government or the Jaipur Development Authority or any public office;
c) there was no wrongful loss caused to anyone as well as no wrongful gain was accrued to anyone;
d) the land in question was not a government land;
e) there was no complaint from any erstwhile society allottee and the proceedings were carried out in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (5 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] accordance with Section 90(B)(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act of 1956 which required that the person in possession be given a regularisation order in accordance with Section 54B of the JDA Act;
f) it was neither disclosed nor alleged in the entire investigation that any public servant received any benefit or undue advantage.
g) The Committee was of the opinion that since no illegality or irregularity has been committed, therefore, the prosecution of the officers may be withdrawn.
After due consideration and requisite contemplation, the state of Rajasthan made a decision for withdrawal from prosecution in public interest and accordingly, an Order No.प.16(93)गृह-10/2019 was issued by the State of Rajasthan for withdrawal from prosecution against the three accused- G.S. Sandhu, Nishkam Diwakar and Omkar Mal Saini who are respondents No. 2-4 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022 and who are the private revision petitioners in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.(s) 114/2022, 115/2022 and 131/2022 respectively. After going through the entire material and decision of the state-level committee, the special public prosecutor filed an application on 19.02.2021 under Section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution against accused G.S. Sandhu, Nishkam Diwakar and Omkar Mal Saini on the ground that the state has decided to withdraw from prosecution arising out of the said FIR as it was not found appropriate in the public interest as well as in the interest of justice. Simultaneously, a (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (6 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] third supplementary report was filed as a final report under Section 173 CrPC by the investigating agency on 07.07.2021 wherein the entire pending investigation was concluded and it was found that co-accused Lalit Panwar and other JDA officials have not committed the alleged offences including the minister Shanti Dhariwal. After receipt of the final report as well as the application under Section 321 of CrPC, the learned trial court heard the parties concerned and by passing the order impugned dated 26.11.2021, has rejected the application filed under Section 321 CrPC which is under assail before this Court.
Learned counsel for the state and the three accused who are private revision petitioners submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the sole count that the learned Court below has not applied its mind to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offences are present or not in the police report filed under Section 173 CrPC by the prosecution and has ignored the fact that there is no sufficient material to continue with the prosecution and that the state has directed the public prosecutor to seek for withdrawal based on solid grounds.
It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order available on record does not reflect that the trial court considered the relevant legal and factual aspects, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside because a public servant who acted in good faith should not be forced to face the rigour of trial on groundless accusations.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(7 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] Learned AAG and counsel for the private petitioners strenuously urged that after the consideration of the entire legal and factual aspects of the matter and observing the paucity of evidence, the state of Rajasthan has resolved to withdraw the prosecution and thereafter, the concerned Public Prosecutor, after due application of mind, moved the application which in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have been allowed but by having not done so, the learned court below has committed grave error of law, the perpetuity of which would surely jeopardize the rights of the parties.
Learned counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 01 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022) submitted that the complainant does not have any objection if the prayer of the State of Rajasthan is granted by the Hon'ble Court and he does not wish to pursue the matter any further.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that after receipt of exhaustive supplementary report dated 12.06.2019 and the final closure report dated 07.07.2021, it has now become crystal clear that the officers concerned had not committed any legal or procedural error and therefore, the complainant is now convinced that no offence was committed. He further submitted that on the basis of the closure report, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the accusations against the UDH Minister Shanti Dhariwal, therefore, it would be just and proper to stifle the prosecution against the public servants who have been forced to face the trial. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(8 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] Heard learned counsel for the state, learned counsel for the private revision-petitioners as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
"We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice."
These words of Justice Krishna Iyer, as observed in State of Punjab and Another Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr. reported in 1976 AIR 1177, seem befitting to start the observations in the present matter.
The consent for withdrawal of prosecution was sought under Section 321 CrPC by the public prosecutor in pursuance of the order issued by the state vide application dated 19.01.2021 before framing of charge against respondent No.(s) 2-4 of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 113/2022. The accused are bureaucrats who perform the administrative function in the government and it is the duty of the state to protect them from litigation which is not well-founded so that they are able to function freely and take executive decisions. If public servants like the accused are harassed by way of continuing frivolous litigation against them, then the functioning of the state is affected and as a result, implementation of policies and programmes gets affected too. If the senior officials in the bureaucracy have a fear or an impression in their minds before (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (9 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] taking a decision that they might have to face litigation, then it might cause delay in decision making which ultimately leads to suffering of the public at large. It is imperative to safeguard the morale of the bureaucrats so that they are able to discharge their duties for the welfare of the public perfectly and swiftly in a conducive atmosphere. In cases where the state has examined from every angle and has found that no irregularity or illegality has taken place, no offence has been committed, no wrongful loss or loss for that matter has been caused to the state rather the state was benefitted and the performance of work was smooth, then it won't be in the interest of the state and the citizens of the state to prosecute the bureaucrats in such cases. If the bureaucrats are allowed to be prosecuted in such matters while there is material on record which makes evident that they were not liable for any wrongful gain or illegality or commission of an offence, then it would lead to hampering the working of other personnel employed in the bureaucracy. It would knock the stuffing out of the bureaucrats who are currently working as they would tend to be apprehensive of taking any important and impactful decisions and remain on edge because of the thought that the state would not come forward to protect their rights in case they are prosecuted on unscrupulous accusations. This reluctant and delayed decision making would affect the state machinery and make it slow and ineffective and as a necessary consequence of the adverse ramifications, the public would be affected. Apart from the aspect that no offence has been made out against the respondents, it is vital to consider to some extent (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (10 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] that there needs to be some motivation for the bureaucrats to work with an unbiased and objective outlook and without getting deterred from making tough calls. Of course, it does not mean that the bureaucrats should be cheer-led into a rampant spree of rash decisions. The individual as well as the esprit de corps of the bureaucrats needs to be protected from baseless litigation. A co-ordinate bench of this court has quashed the proceedings arising out of the same FIR that the present accused persons are booked in qua accused-petitioner Shanti Dhariwal, the then UDH minister vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5353/2022 titled Shanti Dhariwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The petitioner in that case, Shanti Dhariwal, had prayed for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings in Session Case No. 01/2021 arising out of FIR No. 422/2014 and the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the court below whereby on the protest petition filed by the complainant, closure reports dated 12/13.06.2019 and 07.07.2021 were rejected and further investigation was directed by the learned trial court. In the above criminal miscellaneous petition No. 5353/2022, the counsel for the state submitted that an application for withdrawal from prosecution against other co- accused was filed by the state and counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant [respondent No.3 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5353/2022] did not want to pursue the matter. It was observed by the co-ordinate bench that there was no material to proceed against the petitioner; that an application was filed by the state under Section 321 CrPC for (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (11 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] withdrawal from prosecution; that the final report submitted by the investigating agency also stated that no offence was made out against the petitioner and that continuing the proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. All the above observations moved the court to arrive at the decision of quashing the proceedings qua the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5353/2022.
The reasons enumerated above are very much present and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present matter before us and if no case is made out against the minister who was holding the portfolio of the department under which the alleged acts of corruption, cheating, abetment etc. took place, then it is perplexing to this Court as to how the senior officers working in the same department can be allowed to be prosecuted. A minister is the head of the department and his decision is considered to be final in all the matters of the department. If the investigating agency has cleared the name of the minister from the accusations arising in the same matter and the court has also quashed the proceedings against the said minister by passing a reasoned order and post considering all factors, then there is no point in pursuing the prosecution against the accused persons in the present matter as they are mere officers working in the executive of the state government whose decisions and actions are ultimately subject to approval and imprimatur of the head of the department. Implementation of law is used to execute justice and the demand of justice is not contingent upon winnowing out the undesirable or the unwanted (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (12 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] outcome while keeping the grain. As on date, by order of a co- ordinate bench of this court, the entire proceeding qua the accused Shanti Dhariwal who was the then Minister of UDH Department, has been considered to be worth quashing then the private petitioners of this case who were though charge-sheeted earlier but the accusations against them are similar to the accused Shanti-Dhariwal, also deserve equal treatment. Justice demands that equal treatment should be meted out to the present private petitioners also, more so when the exhaustive closure report-cum-progress report has clear mention of the fact that no offence is made out and in such circumstances, the application of the state for withdrawal from prosecution seems justifiable. The court cannot pick and choose who shall be prosecuted and who would be discharged on the same allegations and same material available on record.
Another aspect that needs to be considered is that an opinion cannot be taken to be a solid evidence, that too, without any material supporting that opinion. Simply because the earlier investigating officer had an opinion which supported the prosecution of the private petitioners, it does not mean that it should be accepted even if it is not reasonable and justifiable. Merely on the basis of an opinion of an investigating officer, it would be unreasonable to prosecute senior officials in light of the opinion of the high-level committee, the reports of the senior officers of the department and of the state, the public prosecutor and officers of the investigating agency supporting non-
commission of any offence, more particularly when the
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(13 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022]
department of home, department of UDH and department of Co- operative Registry are of the opinion that nothing wrong was committed by these officials who are before the trial court. Moving on to the discussion regarding withdrawal from prosecution as per the statute, Section 321 of the CrPC is reproduced below for easy reference:
321. Withdrawal from prosecution.--The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,--
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:
Provided that where such offence--
(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or
(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or
(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or
(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (14 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution.
Hon'ble the Apex Court has propounded the law with regard to Section 321 CrPC in the landmark case of Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288, and it has been held therein that public policy, interest of administration, reasons of state regarding inexpediency to proceed with the prosecution and paucity of evidence are some of the reasons that can be considered as valid grounds for withdrawal from prosecution.
It seems that the learned court below has not acted in consonance with the spirit of law as enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paswan (supra). Even though the application was filed in good faith sans any political vendetta in the interest of public policy & justice and the objective of the application was not to suffocate the process of law, yet the application for withdrawal from prosecution was not consented to.
It has also been observed in Paswan (supra) that if the case has been withdrawn by the public prosecutor for good reason with the consent of the court then the appellate court, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (15 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] which was the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter, should be slow to interfere with the order of withdrawal. In the present factual matrix, the public prosecutor had good reason to seek withdrawal and thus, this Court is further persuaded to consent to the application for withdrawal.
It is needless to say that the courts should exercise caution while consenting to withdrawal of prosecution against public officials and ministers as it is the bounden duty of the court to verify and satisfy itself that whether the withdrawal from prosecution of an offence related to corruption or public breach of trust by an individual holding a position in a high level public office should be allowed or not as the sanctity of public administration is hard to maintain in the present day scenario where instances of corruption have become more frequent than they used to be in earlier times and it has become difficult to identify whether an individual was party to the commission of such offences owing to the political snafus that usually surround such matters.
It is pertinent to note that the basic principle on the basis of which a prosecutor applies for withdrawal from prosecution is furtherance of cause of public justice and in the present case, the cause of public justice would be hampered if the prosecution is allowed to continue. The grounds for withdrawal as envisaged in the application submitted by the prosecutor make it clear that there is not ample evidence to sustain the charge against the private petitioners. It is found apt to reiterate that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. In Paswan (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (16 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] (supra), the 'imperative of public justice' has been emphasized upon and it has been observed that the same may even cut across the legal justice in particular litigation. The validity of grounds can be determined using the ideal test which is that the necessity of public justice outbalances the legal justice in that particular case so that the imperative of public justice is preserved and furthered. While exercising its judicial discretion with regard to deciding upon the validity and legitimacy of the grounds, the court cannot apply a standard formula. In the present case, it is to be seen whether the grounds cited by the prosecutor in his application have been satisfactorily established and whether they are apropos the furtherance of public justice. In the instant case, the 'imperative of public justice' has not been hampered or adversely affected by the acts of the accused rather they have made efforts to safeguard the interests of public to the best of their capabilities by acting in a responsible manner in accordance with the information available to them. Each case of withdrawal from prosecution needs to be looked at in light of the respective facts and circumstances of the case while keeping in mind the precepts and cause of public justice. It is to be seen whether consenting to the application for withdrawal from prosecution would cause gross and manifest injustice or would serve the ends of justice.
In the case at hand, no allegations have been raised against the public prosecutor that his actions are borne out of malifide intentions or that he is recipient to any improper consideration or that he has not preferred the application out of good faith. Thus, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (17 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] the intention of the public prosecutor to file the application for withdrawal from prosecution is not stained with malice and cannot be doubted. He pursued the application after getting the requisite material explicit in the resolution passed by the state government on 19.01.2021 (No.प.16(93)गृह-10/2019) and after applying his independent mind, sought withdrawal from prosecution. The perusal of the application filed by the prosecutor clearly manifests that the learned public prosecutor applied his mind and mentioned the grounds for seeking withdrawal in detail while laying down the relevant facts. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the role of the public prosecutor was performed in conformity of the provision of Section 321 of CrPC and the law laid down in the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It would not be just in the present case to assail the withdrawal on the ground that the reasons given by the prosecutor were insufficient or that application of mind by the prosecutor was inadequate. Thus, in view of this Court, the observation of the learned trial court is not proper rather it seems to be based on conjectures.
When commission of an offence is alleged in a criminal case, it is alleged as done against society and not against any person, thus, state is a party in criminal proceeding. A public prosecutor is responsible for conducting the prosecution on behalf of the state or the central government, as the case may be but it is his obligatory duty towards the court to be objective and fair in his disposition as well as conduct throughout the proceedings. He is duty bound to assist the court and exercise his (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (18 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] action in a fair and just manner. In Berger Vs. United States reported in 295 U.S. 778 (1935), the essence of the above observation has been captured in the following words:
"It is as much the duty of the United States Attorney to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
Similarly, in the present case as well as in the general Indian context, the goal of the prosecutor is not to score a conviction of the accused or win the case but it is to secure the ends of justice in every single case that he represents the state in. The goal of the prosecutor should ideally be that neither any guilty person should escape from the process of law nor should any innocent person suffer in the name of justice. The move exercised by the public prosecutor while filing the application for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be interfered with so easily unless the Court is of the opinion that there was no application of mind by the prosecutor or that he was acting out of malafide intentions. It has been held in Paswan (supra) that a public prosecutor should ordinarily be credited with fairness when he exercises his power under section 321 of CrPC if there are no objections raised in the context of him acting in an improper manner.
The public prosecutor sought withdrawal from prosecution under section 321 CrPC on the main grounds that:- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(19 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022]
i) the detailed state-level committee report did not find the three accused liable to be prosecuted.
ii) The name of the three accused persons did not find place in the complaint, the preliminary enquiry (PE-15/2014) as well as in the FIR No. 422/2014.
iii) This case is related to land that comes under private khatedari and the khasra No.s 137. 145 and 146, measuring 3.43 hectares, remained with the Rajendra Nagar Adarsh House Construction Co-operative Committee. It was brought to the notice of JDA that the land under the above-mentioned khasra No.s was being used for non-agricultural purposes in 2003 and it was decided by the concerned officer that the land in question will be reconstituted as government land and the khatedari would be cancelled. However, on 17.09.2003, a letter was presented before the JDA wherein it was prayed that the land be allotted to the samiti as all the allottees have submitted their allotment with the samiti and they plan to build flats on the land and a single patta be issued to them for the same. The JDA committee that went through this letter decided to issue a single patta to the samiti. On 04.06.2005, the possession of the whole land was transferred to one of the members, that is, M/s Ganpati Construction. On 07.06.2005, a letter was written to the JDA by the Samiti seeking issuance of single patta to M/s Ganpati Construction. An amount of approximately Rs. 43,00,000/- was deposited with the JDA by M/s Ganpati Construction as per the demand letter raised by the JDA. Thereafter, while JDA was proceeding further with the issuance (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (20 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] of the patta, since the area of the land exceeded 1500 square yards, therefore, it was required as per the directions and guidelines in place at that moment in time that permission was required to be sought from the state government. JDA submitted a letter for the same to the state government on 14.06.2005 but the same was rejected on 18.10.2005. After lapse of some time, M/s Ganpati Construction submitted another request letter to the government which was received by UDH Department on 01.07.2010, praying therein to objectively consider the legal and factual aspects of the matter. A detailed report was sought from the JDA in this regard and no objections were raised by the JDA with regard to M/s Ganpati Construction in the detailed report nor any information regarding the previous khatedari was relayed. There were meetings conducted by the department for deciding the said matter and finally, vide letter dated 06.04.2011, JDA was directed to issue a sigle patta to M/s Ganpati Construction. On 29.06.2011, JDA issued a single patta in favour of M/s Ganpati Construction in the name of Mr. Shailendra Garg, considering him to be the proprietor. Upon receiving an RTI, the appeal was presented before accused G.S. Sandhu, the then Principal Secretary, UDH, who directed JDA to conclude the proceedings in the matter and send the documents for scrutiny to the department. Upon scrutiny, it was revealed that the patta was issued in the name of Mr. Shailendra Garg, considering him to be the proprietor whereas M/s Ganpati Construction was a partnership firm and Mr. Garg was one of the partners. Upon receiving legal opinion, the accused G.S. Sandhu (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (21 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] presented a document before the state government suggesting cancellation of patta and opening of enquiry and investigation against the officers who were liable for the mistake. Upon the representation so made, the Minister of UDH Department directed for cancellation of the patta as well as initiation of departmental enquiry and lodging of FIR against the concerned officers who were in the wrong. The patta was cancelled by JDA vide order dated 24.05.2013. A writ was filed by Mr. Shailendra Garg against the cancellation order which was rejected by a co- ordinate bench of this Court. Thus, the facts, as afore- mentioned, were noted by the prosecutor which clearly suggest that the accused did not commit any act which was out of their scope of duty or gained any revenue by illegal means and they acted in a bonafide manner while discharging their official duty.
iv) After a representation made by accused Nishkam Diwakar and G.S. Sandhu, praying for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC, was received by the state government, the opinions of the UDH Department as well as the ACB were sought. The ACB neither expressed any disagreement on the factual points raised in the representation nor did it recommend anything adverse. The opinion of the committee formed by the UDH Department was that the change of membership was not expected to be looked into by the UDH Department or the JDA and that the land was not feasible to be used for any other purpose; moreover, as the patta was cancelled by the JDA, no loss or gain was caused to any person.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(22 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022]
v) It were the officials of department of cooperative society who were responsible for conducting the proceeding in respect of making and nominating Mr. Shailendra Garg as a member of cooperative society but the same was not the task to be undertaken by the officials of UDH Department and JDA.
vi) The opinions of the Chief Secretary of the State and the Additional Advocate General were received in favour of the withdrawal from prosecution.
vii) The opinion of the State-level Committee was also in favour of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC. The grounds enumerated therein have been discussed in detail later in the judgment.
viii) The progress report dated 12.06.2019 submitted by the investigating agency recorded a conclusion which was different than the previous charge sheet. It raised suspicion on some of the facts and made contrary observations on the rest of the facts based on new facts that came to light during further investigation. It concluded that there was no point in continuing the proceedings against the three accused as the possibility of conviction of the three accused is very bleak and there was no illegal gain or loss caused to any individual or the state government.
ix) Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in this regard.
The decision of the public prosecutor is subject to just one limitation, that is, the consent of the court which also acts as a safeguard against misuse or abuse of power by the government (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (23 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] as in cases where the public prosecutor is just following orders of the state and has not applied his independent mind or assessed the situation objectively, the court would not consent to such withdrawal and the application would be vitiated. This safeguard operates in the company of another principal safety measure which is that every application shall be based on grounds which have public justice at the end of their core. Therefore, in addition to the fact that the public prosecutor has made an independent and detailed application of mind before applying for withdrawal from prosecution, the grounds supplied by the public prosecutor also stand steadfast in the test of legitimacy as well as relevancy.
In the case of State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith and Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 3954, after discussing its various pronouncements on the law as contained in Section 321 CrPC, Hon'ble the Supreme Court condensed and compiled the principles that emerged from the precedents like State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey and Anr. (AIR 1957 SC 389), M.N. Sankarayaraynan Nair Vs. P.V. Balakrishan (1972 1 SCC
318), Rajender Kumar Jain Vs. State through Special Police Establishment and Ors. (1980 3 SCC 435), Shenonandan Paswan (supra), Yernini Raja Ramchandar Vs. Styate of Asndhra Pradesh and Ors. (2009 15 SCC 604), Bairam Murlidhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014 10 SCC 380) and they are reproduced as under:
"23. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (24 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] under Section 321 of the CrPC can now be formulated:
(i) Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution;
(ii) The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice;
(iii) The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution;
(iv) While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the public prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons;
(v) In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the court exercises a judicial function but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that:
(a) The function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes;
(b) The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law;
(c) The application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (25 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given;
(d) The grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice; and
(e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the public prosecutor is duty bound to maintain;
(vi) While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution subserves the administration of justice, the court would be justified in scrutinizing the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especially where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated; and
(vii) In a situation where both the trial judge and the revisional court have concurred in granting or refusing consent, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings. The Court may in exercise of the well-
settled principles attached to the exercise of this jurisdiction, interfere in a case where there has been a failure of the trial judge or of the High Court to apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhold consent."
The scope of section 321 can be assessed by reading into the language of the preceding provision in the Code as Section 320 also uses the phrases 'with the permission of the Court' and 'with the consent of the Court' and it is the immediately preceding provision, thereby it is justified to assume that the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (26 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] flavour of Section 320 will also seep into Section 321. Section 320 of the Code provides for compounding of offences and it conceives that the impediment of consent on the power of the prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution is to be exercised in a supervisory manner and not an adjudicatory manner. It is not necessary to scrutinise the evidence meticulously to see whether the result of the trial would be conviction or not. It is only required to be seen that the application was made in good faith, with reasonable and valid grounds relating to the interest of the public and that the prosecutor has applied his independent mind before filing. The impugned order failed to take into account all these aspects and dwelled too much on the opinion of the investigating officer earlier appointed in the investigation rather than focusing on the report of the high-level committee as well as the progress report filed by the investigating agency during investigation which was more detailed and thorough than the previous two charge-sheets.
Another aspect to be considered is that when compelling reasons are apparent on the face of the record that suggest that the possibility of conviction is very bleak or rather it is absent altogether as there is scarcity of evidence and when neither the state nor the complainant wish to proceed against the accused, then senior public officers of the bureaucracy should not be forced to go through the rigour of trial only to be discharged or acquitted later after facing long harassment.
The word 'scheme' means a systematic or organised configuration or an arrangement and in the context of law, the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (27 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] word means the arrangement of the sections in an enactment passed by the legislature. The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that a statute is required to be studied in its entire context in harmony with the scheme of the act, inter alia other factors like object of the act and intention of the legislature. While deciding upon the application for withdrawal in the present set of facts, it is pertinent to listen to the tunes of the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure which takes us to Section 169 of CrPC. Section 169 provides the law for release of an accused in case of deficiency of evidence and it reads as under:
169. Release of accused when evidence deficient.--If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial.
Though a closure report under Section 169 has not been filed in the present case but the scheme of the Code and a plain reading of the aforementioned provision reflects that if there is insufficiency of evidence to the point that no grounds are available to sustain the charge against the accused, then he may be released during investigation itself before he is forwarded to (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (28 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] the magistrate or before a charge sheet has been filed. In light of the fact that it was clearly recorded in the last closure report dated 07.07.2021 filed by the investigating agency that no case is made out against the named accused and the other person involved in the matter and thus, the pending investigation is closed, it is safe to infer that there was paucity of evidence and not even a single piece of evidence was found to incriminate the accused persons. If the scheme of the Code is interpreted through the provision of Section 169 and applied to the above fact of closure report filed under Section 173(8), then the application of statutory rules of interpretation would suggest the conclusion that as there is dearth of evidence to the extent that no case can survive against the accused by any stretch of imagination and even a crutch can't help get the prosecution up on its feet. If it is assumed that the supplementary/final reports are not meant to be considered, then the object of sub-clause (8) of Section 173 CrPC would not be served and it would become redundant.
In State of Orissa Vs. Chandrika Mohapatra, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 250, the application for withdrawal from prosecution was made based on two premises, one of which was that the evidence collected during investigation was scarce and thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused. In this case, Hon'ble the Apex Court had upheld the order giving consent passed by the Magistrate and had held that paltry evidence is a justifiable (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (29 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] ground for withdrawal from prosecution. In the instant case as well, it can be safely inferred that there is paucity of evidence.
A vague and bald statement in itself does not constitute an offence. It is very easy to allege that corruption was committed but to direct a person to face the trial for an accusation, there must be some material showing his culpability on the ground of which he can be deprived of exercising his fundamental rights. The conclusion of the learned trial court is hypothetical and based on surmises and conjectures as there is data showing paucity of evidence as well as clear assertion that nothing wrong was done in issuance of the alleged patta.
An appeal against an order giving consent to withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 CrPC is not envisaged under the Code, however, such an order is subject to revision under section 397 CrPC and it is well-established that the court in revision considers the material available on record only to the extent of satisfying itself regarding the legality, correctness and propriety of the findings, sentence or order and abstains from swapping its own conclusion on a detailed appreciation of evidence. In order to cement the opinion of this Court that the prosecution would surely collapse on its face if allowed to be continued and for the purpose of judging the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order, certain relevant material, including the report by the state-level committee and the progress and closure reports filed by the police, has been looked into and some relevant factors have been taken note of in the forthcoming paragraphs. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(30 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] The state level committee that was formed to provide recommendations to the state government with regard to withdrawal from prosecution in the present matter went through the material minutely and examined the case in detail. Thereafter, it recommended in favour of withdrawal of prosecution on the grounds as mentioned in the next paragraph.
The State-level Committee formed under the Home Department enlisted some of the points that it considered important for the decision in this matter. It was noted therein that after the concerned Minister had given his approval to the legal recommendation made to him by the then Joint Legal Consultant, UDH Department and as conveyed by the then Additional Chief Secretary, UDH Department, the JDA was directed to cancel the patta of the property in question. Thus, the property came to be in its original form after the patta was cancelled on 24.05.2013. The investigation conducted by the ACB did not reveal that any loss in revenue was caused to the state government as well as the JDA and the facts do not reveal that there was any illegal gain or loss to any specific person, including the employees and officers of the department. It was further stated that the ACB has accepted in its investigation that the property under question is not owned by the state government and none of the original patta holders have come forward to register a complaint or grievance with the ACB, the JDA or the government. When the government did not have ownership of the land and the land was owned by private parties and it is currently lying in the same, original form legally and otherwise as (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (31 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] it was before the initiation of the whole dispute, without being employed in use in any way, then it is safe to assume that no hole has been dug in the pockets of the government and there is no unfounded gain or loss caused to the government in the present matter.
It was further noted in the state-level committee report that the findings of the investigating officer who had filed the first and the second charge-sheets were contradicted by the findings and facts recorded in the report which was submitted during further investigation by different investigating officer. The fact that Rs. 43,35,657/- were deposited with the JDA for the regularization of the land in question outrightly answers the question of whether financial loss was caused against public interest in the negative. Upon a representation dated 17.07.2019 made by the two accused, namely Nishkam Diwakar and G.S. Sandhu, the UDH Department formed a committee which assessed and examined all the aspects of the matter in detail and recommended that the prosecution should be withdrawn in respect of these two accused.
Another notable point of the report submitted by the state- level committee is that no prosecution sanction as per the mandate of law was procured before filing of charge-sheet under Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC against the then additional chief secretary of the UDH Department, that is, the accused G.S. Sandhu. In the present set of facts and circumstances, it cannot be elicited that the three accused who were senior bureaucrats committed any act or misdeed with any malafide intention and the same is supported by the well- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(32 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] reasoned report of the state-level committee and the said committee also expressed that if such prosecution is allowed to continue, then it would have an adverse impact on the morale of the officers working in the executive.
The committee also considered the opinion of the learned Additional Advocate General according to which the chances of ultimate conviction were bleak and there was dearth of evidence; the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences as alleged were missing and the single patta issued to Ganpati Construction was cancelled in 2013 and the same had attained finality as the writ petition filed by Ganpati Construction was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. Finally, it was concluded in the meeting of the state-level committee that looking to the facts of the case as well as the opinion of the learned Additional Advocate General, the prosecution against accused G.S. Sandhu, Nishkam Diwakar and Omkar Mal Saini arising out of FIR No. 4222014 should be withdrawn in public interest.
The private petitioners did not secure any money or pecuniary advantage that could be used to the detriment of the executive arm of the state or the public in general. Their actions do not come within the ambit of criminal misconduct or colourable exercise of power or providing benefit to a third party.
Another aspect of the case would be that applications have been filed in all the four petitions on behalf of the complainant party expressing that they have no objection if this Court allows the application under Section 321 CrPC filed by the respective (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (33 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] petitioners. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shiji and Ors. Vs. Radhika and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 499 has held that if the complainant does not wish for continuance of prosecution and does not support the allegations, then it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings that would serve no purpose. The prosecution was quashed in that case as continuance of the proceedings was concluded to be an empty formality. In light of Shiji (supra), the litigation in the present case also seems to be in vain and the withdrawal deserves to be consented to just with a view to stifle continuance of a lame prosecution.
If the complainant and the state do not want to pursue the prosecution against the respondents No.(s) 2 to 4 then the court cannot be expected to sit as a prosecutor in the proceedings. If there is no one willing to conduct the prosecution, then this Court wonders who will present evidence, examine witnesses, cross examine the witnesses, or make submissions on behalf of the complainant or the state. Even if for the sake of adjudicatory satisfaction, the trial is allowed to proceed further, then there would be no one willing to substantiate the claims of the complainant, including the complainant himself and no one would corroborate any of the submissions or evidence, if any, as well as no one would come forward to support the charge. It would be a travesty of justice to make the accused stand trial when both the rival stakeholders, that is, the state and the complainant, do not find it worthy to continue the prosecution. The process of law cannot be turned into a pantomime or be subjected to mockery. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(34 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] Additionally, if it is supposed that this litigation is allowed to continue and after elapse of five years, the prosecution fails to prove a case against the accused and they are acquitted, then the mental agony that the accused would have gone through will be unfathomable and there will be no compensation good enough for the same. If we look at the factual matrix of the present case from another viewpoint while putting the will of the state and public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution aside, then, in light of paucity of evidence against the accused and the fact that the complainant is not willing to take the case further, there is no other option left with the state but to seek withdrawal under the aegis of Section 321 CrPC.
Allegations of corruption, especially by officials situated at high-level executive jobs, need to be looked at with a stern eye and corruption in such cases needs to be dealt with an iron hand but at the same time, this Court is of the opinion that emotions or passion for justice cannot be allowed to take over reason or cloud the judgment of an adjudicator.
It is true that no person enjoys a privilege against criminal prosecution, however, the senior members of the executive pillar of the democracy need to be able to function without apprehension and hindrance of being prosecuted over their decisions backed by legitimate reasons.
In R. Sarala Vs. T.S. Velu, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1731, it was made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court that prosecution and investigation are two different facets of administration of criminal justice. In the case at hand, both the wings of the Indian criminal (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (35 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] justice system are opinionated that the accused are not guilty of commission of the offences alleged in the FIR. The investigating agencies have exonerated the accused by filing the closure report stating that there is no point in pursuing the prosecution against the three accused persons and the fact that an application for withdrawal from prosecution has been filed by the prosecutor has given clean chit to the accused from the prosecution side. Thus, there remains no ground on the basis of which the accused can be forced to face the rigour of the trial in the instant matter and this Court is of the considered view that there is no point in pursuing the prosecution against the accused and the same needs to be dropped. It would be a completely futile exercise to continue the prosecution against the accused as the complainant has turned hostile and the state has put in its vote for withdrawal from prosecution.
The learned trial judge dismissed the application mainly on two premises. Firstly, if the opinion of the previous Investigating Officer was that there was irregularity in issuance of the patta and the process of issuance was not perfect then how did the subsequent report mete out the error committed by the earlier Investigating Officer. Secondly, the learned trial court observed that a committee was constituted by the government for consideration of withdrawal from prosecution in which one of the members was the Principal Secretary, UDH Department and thus, it was felt by the learned trial court that the decision of withdrawal from prosecution cannot be said to be an impartial decision.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM)
(36 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] For the first premise, suffice it would be to state that ample reasons have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment which manifestly clarify the facts and circumstances by which an average, prudent person can safely infer that the successive/ supplementary reports were prepared by high rank officers after elaborate discussion of the question as well as consideration of entire material in light of the law prevailing in the matter which gets fortification from the report of technical officers, report of state-level committee comprising of state-level officers and the report of the committee of high-rank officers of Department of Urban Housing and Development as well as Department of Home in the light of which there remains no substance in the earlier charge-sheets.
After collection of further material, taking legal opinions from officers of the highest rank and going through the provisions related to conversion/surrender of land and issuance of patta provided under the Land Revenue Act and the Jaipur Development Authority Act, the successive investigation report makes it abundantly clear that the earlier two charge-sheets were filed by the agency under the wrong impression that the case falls under the ambit of Section 90-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act whilst the committee as well as the investigating agency have clarified that the present case would be covered under Section 90B(1)(2)(5)(6) of the Land Revenue Act. It is also noted in the supplementary report that when the orders regarding surrender of land were passed in the year 2003, the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (37 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] three accused persons were not working in the department of UDH or JDA.
The matter was investigated thoroughly by high-rank officers in which the entire previous material was re-considered and new material was collected and thus, the opinion of ACB based on legal grounds was adverse to the opinion recorded in the prior two charge-sheets. The ACB nodded for withdrawal from prosecution based on the reports of the afore-mentioned officials which are convincing and there seems no reason to discard the same.
As far as the question of inclusion of Principal Secretary, UDH Department in the committee is concerned, in my humble view, the committee was constituted by inclusion of top-notch and the seniormost officials of the state and since the matter is related to UDH, the Principal Secretary of the UDH Department was included and this Court sees no reason to place any doubt in the bonafide action of the state, more so, the approval of the same has also been obtained from Chief Secretary of the State who is the administrative head of the state and the highest in rank of bureaucrats in the state.
From the observations made above, there seem no prospects of successful prosecution in light of paucity of evidence as well as evidence that suggests that there are no cogent grounds on the basis of which the private petitioners can be prosecuted and it can be foreseen that the prosecution cannot stand on its own feet even if it is allowed to be continued. The adverse effect that the prosecution will bring on public interest in light of the discussion (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (38 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] made in the preceding paragraphs is the moving factor which is propelling this Court the most in its inclination to consent to the withdrawal of prosecution.
True it is that the court can not sit as a mute spectator and can not shut its eyes to the illegality and therefore, besides the final opinion based on progress report/supplementary report/final report of the investigating agency and the stand of prosecution, this Court has also gone through the entire material available on record including the first and second charge sheets and after thoughtful consideration of all the aspects involved in this matter, it is found that the decision of government to withdraw the prosecution is not only lawful and appropriate but also justifiable and therefore, interference in the order impugned by this Court is required to secure the ends of justice. There is merit in the revision petitions and the order under assail deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the S.B. Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 113/2022 filed by the petitioner-state succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, No.4, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Regular Case No. 01/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. This court consents to withdrawal of prosecution by the state and accordingly, the application filed by the applicant-state under Section 321 CrPC is hereby allowed and as a consequence thereof, the accused-respondents No.(s) 2-4 are discharged of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) (39 of 39) [CRLR-113/2022] of Corruption Act in FIR bearing no. 422/2014 lodged at ACB, Jaipur, District Jaipur.
As an obvious corollary of the dispositif in the immediately preceding paragraph of this judgment, the rest of the connected matters, i.e. S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions bearing No.(s) 114/2022, 115/2022 and 131/2022 are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous in light of the order passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022.
The instant miscellaneous petitions are disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:49:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)