Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mohan Lal Rao And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 19 March, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1115/2012 MOHANLAL RAO & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE OF ORDER : 19.03.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Timan Singh, for the petitioners.
Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 8/2007, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that in the Session Case No. 8/2007 titled State Vs. Mohanlal & Others, arising out FIR No. 95/2006 registered at Police Station Rampura, Kota for offence under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 504 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act against the petitioners, on dated 24.06.2010 an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was filed for withdrawal of prosecution/case by the Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State Government. On 23.07.2010, an application was filed before the Trial Court by another Special Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the application dated 24.06.2010 filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. On 05.10.2010, the petitioners filed reply to the application submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. stating therein that said application was filed with mala fide intention or ulterior motive and was not sustainable in the eye of law. In pursuance of the letter No. 1231 dated 13.11.2010, the District Collector, Kota wrote a letter on 07.12.2010 to the learned Trial Court stating therein that on the instructions of the State Government the then Special Public Prosecutor had filed an application on 24.06.2010 for withdrawal of prosecution and the newly appointed Special Public Prosecutor was not authorised to withdraw the application dated 24.06.2010, but the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.09.2012 dismissed the application dated 24.06.2010, without going into the merits of the case and posted the case for evidence. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside. The learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., as the said application was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor on the instructions of the State Government. The said application was filed after careful consideration of the material. The subsequent application filed by another Special Public Prosecutor on 23.07.2010 for withdrawal of the earlier application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was actuated with mala fides at the instance of the petitioners' political rivals to settle their political vendetta. The District Collector, Kota vide its letter dated 07.10.2010 had informed the learned Trial Court that the earlier application dated 24.06.2010 was genuine and the Special Public Prosecutor was authorised by the State Government to file the same. Learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application dated 24.06.2010 and order impugned is wholly illegal and the same deserves to be set aside.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that learned Trial Court was not required to appreciate the grounds, which led the special Public Prosecutor to withdraw the application filed by the earlier Special Public Prosecutor. The application filed by the subsequent Special Public Prosecutor was influenced by extraneous considerations, but the learned Trial Court has arbitrarily dismissed the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The State Government had found that there was no sufficient ground for continuing the prosecution case against the petitioners and in the interest of administration of justice, the then Special Public Prosecutor, being satisfied on the basis of the record, had filed the application for withdrawal of the prosecution. Neither the Government nor the Special Public Prosecutor should have reviewed their earlier decision. So, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of State Vs. L. Ganesan and others, 1995 CRI.L.J. 3849(Madras High Court) and Sheo Nandan Paswan V. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 877.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as other documents placed on record.
7. Learned Trial Court, while passing impugned order, has observed as under:
????? ????? ?? ???? ??????-28.5.2012?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????- 24.6.2010 ?? ????-321??????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??: ???? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????-17.10.2012?? ??? ???"
8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application on 24.06.2010 for withdrawal of the prosecution against the petitioners, but before the decision of the said application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., another Special Public Prosecutor filed another application on 23.07.2010 for withdrawal of the application dated 24.06.2010 filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. as per the information given by Special Public Prosecutor that the matter is still pending for reconsideration before the State Government. In my considered opinion, learned Trial Court should have passed the order on merits, but looking to the above observation, it is clear that learned Trial Court has not passed the order on merits and committed illegality in passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be set aside.
9. Resultantly, this revision petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
10. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J.
Manoj All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT