Ramavatar @ Ramu Agrawal and Another vs State of C.G. and Others

V.K. Shrivastava, J.—Heard on admission and on M.Cr.C. No. 2492/2005.

After due investigation of Crime No. 14/2002 registered u/s 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challan has been led in the special Court and the Special Court registered the case which bears No. 46/2003 and is proceedings with the trial.

The State Government vide letter dated 29-08-2005 communicated the District Magistrate, Raigarh that in the opinion of the Government further proceeding with the said case is not proper and also directed District Magistrate to advise Public Prosecutor to proceed u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. District Magistrate Forwarded the letter to Deputy Director Prosecution with a direction to take appropriate action for withdrawal of the case. Therefore, Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned lower Court after hearing the prosecution and also complainant, held that the case relates to weaker sections and that too of a woman against whom crime has been committed, therefore, complete trial is necessary the public prosecutor did not apply his discretion and his prayer is based on the instructions of the Government. Learned lower Court dismissed the application vide its impugned order.

Learned Counsel for the applicant relying on the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain and Others Vs. State Through Special Police Establishment and Others, and Shree Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1987 Cr.L.J. 793 contended that the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind and moved the application for withdrawal, but the learned lower Court without appreciating the provision properly withheld its consent.

From perusal of both the judgments (supra), it is clear that Hon''ble Apex Court has laid the law that the Court has a responsibility and a stake in the administration of criminal justice and has a duty to protect the administration of justice against possible abuse or misuse by the executive by resort to the provisions of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and before granting consent the Court has to satisfy that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised, or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes.

After investigation prosecution itself has found that Bodo Bai has been threatened, abused, assaulted and dishonored being a woman of Scheduled Caste. Not only that, the applicants also encroached upon her lands. On presentation of challan by prosecution itself the trial is proceedings. Reference of letter of Government and District Magistrate has already been quoted above which clearly suggests that the application u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contains details of those letters is a result of its influence. Neither the case is taken back as a result of public policy nor the application has been led by proper exercise of discretion by the prosecution. Apparently, it appears that by invoking the provisions of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice has been made and the learned Court below very correctly to protect the administration of criminal justice against misuse passed the well reasoned order.

I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

In the light of the above order, M.Cr.P. No. 2492/2005 and I.A. No. 3383/2005 stand disposed of.