Quashed

The State of Tripura v. Ajoy Debbarma

Tripura HC24 Aug 2017Crl.Petn./32/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the additional sessions judge's order refusing consent for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC. Ruling that the prosecution can be withdrawn if the Public Prosecutor has applied their mind and it serves public interest, especially with the accused surrendering under government policy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19-01-2015 is quashed; the respondent is discharged from the case.

The State of Tripura Vs Ajoy Debbarma — Bail and Remand | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

CRL PETN NO.32 of 2017

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present :

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

¶6

For the respondent : Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.

¶7

24.08.2017

¶8

Heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the accused respondent.

¶9

This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 19-01-2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in S.T. No.36 of 2003 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawing the case against the respondent.

¶10

The State petitioner in its criminal petition states that the respondent has already surrendered as per the policy of the Central Government and the State Government to lead a normal life. According to the petitioner, the surrender of extremist personnel has made tangible improvement in the law and order situation of the State which will be evident from the statistics adumbrated in paragraph 6 of this criminal petition.

¶11

Section 321 CrPC enables the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried. For doing so, consent of the Court is necessary. The withdrawal must be for proper adjudication of justice and the paramount consideration is the interest of the administration of justice. It may be noted that the case has been pending since 2002, yet the warrant of arrest issued

¶12

CRL PETN NO.32 of 2017 Page 1 of 3

¶13

against him time and again to procure his appearance in Court could not be executed till he agreed to surrender. Needless to say, the policy of the Central and State Government is to encourage the insurgent to leave the path of violence and surrender to lead the life of a normal citizen. The Court is not to re-appreciate the ground which led the Public Prosecutor to request for consent to withdraw; such observation is to read in the context in which it was made which means that the Court is not the appellate authority of Public Prosecutor. The grounds taken by the Public Prosecutor are to be examined by Court to find out whether they are reasonable. Public Prosecutor may be allowed to withdraw from the prosecution to further the broad ends of justice, public order, peace and tranquility. When Court is satisfied that request is unreasonable or tainted with extraneous considerations or without application of mind at the dictate of the State Government, it can refuse to give consent. In this context, it will be profitable to quote the observations of the Apex Court in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288 , which read thus:

¶14

“90. Section 321 CrPC is virtually a step by way of composition of the offence by the State. The State is the master of the litigation in criminal cases. It is useful to remember that by the exercise of functions under Section 321, the accountability of the concerned person or persons does not disappear. A private complaint can still be filed if a party is aggrieved by the withdrawal of the prosecution but running the possible risk of a suit of malicious prosecution if the complaint is bereft of any basis.

¶15

91. Since Section 321 does not give any guidelines regarding the grounds on which a withdrawal application can be made, such guidelines have to be ascertained with reference to decided cases under this

¶16

CRL PETN NO.32 of 2017 Page 2 of 3

¶17

section as well as its predecessor Section 494. I do not propose to consider all the authorities cited before me for the reason that this Court had occasion to consider the question in all its aspects in some of its decisions. Suffice it to say that in the judgments rendered by various High Courts, public policy, interests of the administration, inexpediency to proceed with the prosecution for reasons of State and paucity of evidence were considered good grounds for withdrawal in many cases and not good grounds for withdrawal in certain other cases depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases in those decisions.

¶18

Giribala Dasi v. Mader Gazi¹⁸ , Emperor v. Milanmal Hardasmal¹⁹ , Harihar Sinha v. Emperor²⁰ , King v. Moule Bux²¹ , A.N. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan²² and Bawa Faqir Singh v. Emperor²³ are some of the cases which were brought to our notice.”

¶19

In the instant case, I am of the view that that the Public Prosecutor has dully applied his mind and is satisfied that the withdrawal of the case is in public interest. The trial Court has taken hyper-technical view of the matter in not granting its consent to the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the case.

¶20

Under the circumstances, this criminal petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 19-01-2015 is hereby quashed. Consequently the respondent is discharged from the case.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

Dipesh

¶23