Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The date of making of the FIR is in the year 2016, when the agitation made by the Jat community in Haryana for seeking the making of reservations in their favour in public employment(s), rather was at its zenith.

4. The investigating officer concerned, after completing investigations into the FIR (supra), though took to institute an affirmative report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. However, at the pre- charge stage, the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, proceeded to institute an application cast under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., seeking therein the leave of the Court, to permit the prosecution to withdraw from prosecuting the accused qua the offences constituted in the FIR (supra).

3 of 8

9. An application cast under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., is to be drawn by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, after making the deepest application of mind, and, with an objective analysis of the relevant material, as becomes appended with the affirmative report, as filed by the investigating officer concerned, before the learned Magistrate concerned. In determining whether the above rule became complied by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, a reading of the application cast under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., becomes imperative, readings whereof does underline, the factum qua the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, making an independent application of mind, qua all the relevant, and, germane foundational facts, rather regulating, and, governing his exercising the statutory empowerment, as, conferred upon him, under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. The reference to the above factum, is made, in paragraph 4 of the apposite application, as becomes appended, as Annexure P-2 with the petition, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereafter.

"4. That the undersigned has also independently applied his mind on the issue and has come to the conclusion that the above said case falls within the parameter justifying the withdrawal in view of the principles explained by the courts consistently while commenting upon section 321 of Cr.P.C."

10. The making of the afore application of mind by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, becomes rested upon, the factum that though there was a stir amongst the Jat community in the State of Haryana against their under representation in public employment, and, obviously for mitigating their grievance they protested in the streets. However, the protests were called off, and, also when a reading of the above FIR, does not unfold, that during the process of theirs making protests, for the relevant purpose, though the protesters took to block the highway(s) concerned, but they did not indulge in vandalizing, 4 of 8 and, damaging any public property. Therefore, since the allegation(s) of vandalizing public property are not attributed to the protesters concerned, and, also when it is stated at the bar, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the area concerned, as mentioned in the FIR, the stir ended peacefully after four days since its commencement, and, thereafter did not recommence, therefore, it appears that the protesters concerned, did suo motu peacefully suppress their agitation, and, also ensured the restoration of normalcy in the area concerned. Their atonement is to be revered. Consequently, when hence there was no likelihood of disorder to public order being caused, hence the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, did in his application, bear in mind all the relevant circumstances, and, did proceed to after making an objective analysis, thereofs besides obviously with an independent application of mind, did make, a lawful endeavour to terminate the prosecution, as became endeavoured against the accused concerned. Therefore, the espoused hence leave became amenable for being accorded.

11. The relevant principles which rather were required to be borne in mind by the learned Courts below became enunciated in paragraph 7 of the verdict made by the Delhi High Court in case titled as 'Kiran Chaudhary versus State, reported in 2003 (70) DRJ, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

"7. Without adverting to the principles culled out by the learned Magistrate for dealing with the application under Section 321 CrPC, I straight-away refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Abdul Karim and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2000) 8 SCC 710 wherein the broad principles governing the refusal or grant of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. were reiterated as laid down in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar. These are in short as under:-