Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Kumar Singh @ Sarvesh Singh And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 20 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60485 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9014 of 2023 Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Singh @ Sarvesh Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the validity of the order dated 24.03.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18/Special Court, M.P./M.L.A. Sultanpur, rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by the State for withdrawal of prosecution in Criminal Case No.6489 of 2021: State Vs. Abhishek Singh Rana and others, Case Crime No.710 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506, 395, 397 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur.
3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 17.12.2002 F.I.R. No.710 of 2002 was filed against 14 persons, including the applicants, alleging that after death of a student in an incident in which the police vehicle was involved, a mob started protesting and brick batting against the police persons. The mob turned violent, caused damage to public property and some persons got injuries because of brick batting by the mob.
4. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against 14 persons. On 17.04.2013, the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the learned trial court stating that after going through the documents and taking into consideration all the relevant facts the government had taken decision to withdraw the prosecution in public interest and in the interest of justice and the Public Prosecutor expressed his satisfaction also that the prosecution should be withdrawn.
5. The learned trial court has rejected the application dated 17.04.2013 by means of the impugned order dated 24.03.2023, after passing a decade of its filing.
6. Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection that it is the State only which has to challenge the filing of application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution and, therefore, the State only could have challenged the order rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and the accused persons have no locus-standi to assail the order rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C.
7. Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that it is settled law that any person, who would suffer adverse consequence because of an order can challenge the validity of that order before a higher forum. It is submitted that it is the applicants who will suffer adversely because of rejection of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and therefore the applicants have every right to assail the order rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C.
8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicants has rightly challenged the validity of the order dated 24.03.2023, rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. as had the order been otherwise the applicants would have discharged and therefore the order adversely affects the applicants.
9. The learned trial court has rejected the application for the reason that the offence allegedly committed by the applicants is of a serious nature and the prosecution has not clarified the public interest in which the withdrawal of prosecution has been sought.
10. The incident in question occurred on 17.12.2002. The application for withdrawal of prosecution has been filed on 17.04.2013 and it is stated in the application that after taking into consideration all the relevant materials, a decision was taken by the government to withdraw the prosecution in public interest and in the interest of justice and learned Public Prosecutor has expressed his satisfaction in this regard.
11. As is evident from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. the incident in question took place when a mob had turned violent. Although the wisdom of the government and the Public Prosecutor behind passing considered order cannot be questioned by the Court. Prima facie, it appears that lack of specific evidence against particular persons forming the mob and low probability of proving the case against them beyond reasonable doubt after expiry of more than a decade since the incident, could have given rise to a sufficient reason to opine that it would be in the public interest not to pursue the ligation in such circumstances and it would be in the interest of justice as well. At the time of consideration of the application, the period of more than two decades had elapsed since incident.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court is of the opinion that any person, who would suffer adverse consequence because of an order can challenge the validity of that order before a higher forum. It is the applicants who will suffer adversely because of rejection of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and therefore the applicants have every right to assail the order rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. No useful purpose will be served in forcing the State to continue with the prosecution proceedings against the applicants even after expiry of more than two decades against the considered decision taken by the State and by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution.
13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the order dated 24.03.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18/Special Court, M.P./M.L.A. Sultanpur, rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by the State for withdrawal of prosecution in Criminal Case No.6489 of 2021: State Vs. Abhishek Singh Rana and others, Case Crime No.710 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506, 395, 397 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. The order impugned is hereby quashed.
14. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Ram.