M/s. V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. S.P. Gupta & Anr.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 321 , Section 91
Withdrawal from Prosecution - Filing of application by APP - Subsequent application for withdrawal of application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by APP - Aggrieved person - Accused persons cannot be allowed to contest such an application and also cannot file documents and take recourse to Section 91 Cr.P.C. - The kind of liberty granted to the accused persons by High Court is absolutely not in consonance with the Code of Criminal Procedure - If anyone is aggrieved in such a situation, it is the victim, for the case instituted against the accused persons on his FIR is sought to be withdrawn - The accused persons have no role and, therefore, the High Court could not have quashed the orders permitting the prosecution to withdraw the application and granting such liberty to the accused persons.
Withdrawal from Prosecution - Filing of application by APP - Subsequent application for withdrawal of application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by APP - Challenge as to by accused by filing writ petitioner - Learned Magistrate was directed by the High Court to consider the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor seeking withdrawal of the application earlier preferred under Section 321 Cr.P.C. - In such a situation, it is difficult to appreciate how Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be taken aid of by the accused persons - Held that the High Court has fallen into error by permitting the accused persons to file an application Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Withdrawal from Prosecution - Filing of application by APP - Subsequent application for withdrawal of application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by APP - Held that filing of the application for seeking withdrawal from prosecution and application not to press the application earlier filed are both within the domain of Public Prosecutor - He has to be satisfied and has to definitely act independently for he is not a post office - Facts would the Public Prosecutor had not moved the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. but only filed - He could have orally prayed before the court that he did not intend to press the application -Court could not have compelled him to assist it for obtaining consent - Court has a role when the Public Prosecutor moves the application seeking the consent for withdrawing from the prosecution - At that stage, the court is required to see whether there has been independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and whether other ingredients are satisfied to grant the consent - Prior to the application being taken up being moved by the Public Prosecutor, the court has no role - If the Public Prosecutor intends to withdraw or not press the application, he is entitled to do so - Court cannot say that the Public Prosecutor has no legal authority to file the application for not pressing the earlier application.
Withdrawal from Prosecution - Filing of application by APP - Subsequent application for withdrawal of application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by APP - Principle stating that the Public Prosecutor should apply his mind and take an independent decision about filing an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. cannot be faulted but stretching the said principle to say that he is to convince the court that he has filed an application for not pressing the earlier application would not be appropriate as the learned Magistrate had not dealt with the earlier application -Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside - Learned Magistrate directed to proceed with the cases in accordance with law.
Topic(s)-Criminal Procedure - Withdrawal from Prosecution - Law clarified