Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Adjudication on focal issue i.e. rejection of application under section 321 Cr.P.C.

[9] Revisting to the principal issue, applicability of Section 321 Cr.P.C., which deals about withdrawal from the prosecution in the present case. In this regard, lets have certain old quotation which gives beacon light to adjudicate instant controversy :-

"Justice, though due to accused is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained until it is narrowed it is a filament. We are to keep the balance true."

[56] The Court is duty-bound to refer recent judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court herein, which has cleared off all the confusions and seeping of interpretation i.e. State of Kerala v. K. Ajit and others [Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2021 decided on 28th July 2021.

[57] Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following three judgements i.e. (1) Aishwarya Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Application 482 No. 44691 of 2018 decided on 15.05.2019 (2) Abdul Kareem and others v. State of Karnataka [2008 SCC page 710] (3) Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain [2005 SCC (Cri) 506] [58] This Court has keenly perused all the aforesaid judgements and from the conclusions of the same, it establishes that they primarily have focussed upon the role of judiciary in deciding the application under section 321 Cr.P.C. There is no quarrel to the legal preposition that under section 321 Cr.P.C., the consent of the Court connotes a supervisory and not adjudicatory manner and the Court has to see that the application moved by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution has been properly made in a good faith and in the interest of public tranquillity and justice and not to just thwart or stifle process of law but the issue represented in these cases, have no application in the present controversy. In as much as stated above, there is no quarrel to the legal preposition but certainly if executives over-step its boundary, it creates a fault line against any functionary, healthy and liberal democracy.

"The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution 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;

[67] From the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of view that no case to exercise the power under section 321 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the applicant and deserves to be rejected.

Last but not the least, provision of Section 321 Cr.P.C. are completely antithesis of popular couplet from RAMCHARITMANAS :-

*lejFk dgq¡ ugha nks"k xkslkbZ] jfo ikod lqjlfj dh ukbZ-* In our criminal dispensation system, we cannot afford to pick and choose depending upon the caste, creed, religion, political affiliation, financial capacity etc. The application of law should be one and uniform to all top to bottom. "Weak never suck the blood of mighty, as it is done with might and therefore, a weak always remain enimic and sometimes dead." This is the binding duty of court of law to come with the side of weak and provides adequate shelter and opportunity for his survival.