CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that while hearing an application filed by a public prosecutor for withdrawal of prosecution in a criminal case, the trial court judge should see if the application for withdrawal is free from any taint of mala fides. The HC passed these orders while setting aside the orders passed by Rohtak courts dismissing the application filed by public prosecutor for withdrawal of criminal cases registered during the February 2016 Jat agitation for reservation.
“Moreover, when the protest obviously was peaceful except the protesters blocking the highway, as a measure to ventilate their claim for reservation in public employment. Therefore, it was inappropriate for both the courts to conclude that yet the interest of justice would not be subserved, in case the application is allowed. It appears that the afore inference has been drawn on surmisal grounds, and, appears to be a sequel of both the courts below assessing the quality of the evidence, and, endeavouring to discover therefrom whether the prosecution case would terminate in a conviction or in acquittal, assessments whereof, are, expostulated in the verdict rather, to be forbidden or not required to be made.”
Justice Sureshwar Thakur has passed these orders while hearing a plea filed by Ramesh Dalal, a lawyer and farmer from Rohtak district of Haryana. The petitioner, along with some other persons, was booked on February 15, 2016 by Sampla police station for obstruction of public way and related charges and under the National Highway Act for blocking the road during the Jat stir for reservation.
However, at the pre-charge stage, the public prosecutor concerned, proceeded to institute an application under section 321 of the CrPc seeking permission to withdraw from prosecuting the accused in the case. However, the judge hearing the matter turned down the plea. A revision petition against that order was also dismissed by the higher court of district court Rohtak, after which the petitioner had approached the HC.
After hearing all the parties, the HC observed that since the allegations of vandalising 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, thereof besides obviously with an independent application of mind, did make, a lawful endeavour to terminate the prosecution, as became endeavoured against the accused concerned,” observed the HC, while upholding the decision of public prosecutor to withdraw the cases registered during Jat stir.
