1

® IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.737/2012 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 744, 813, 812/2012

IN CRL.P.NO.737/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA . ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P. RENUKACHARYA S/O. SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 47 YEARS, JANGAMA MLA, R/O. HIREKALMATA VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

2

2. M.V.P. ARADHYA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 42 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O HIREKALMATA VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

3. SHIVASHANKARAIAH S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 55 YEARS, JANGAMA PRINCIPAL, MRUTHUNJAYA COLLEGE R/O HIREKALMATA VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

4. M.P. VISHWANATHARADHYA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 43 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O HIREKALMATA VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

5. M.P. RAJAPPA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 38 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O HIREKALMATA VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

6. M.P. RAMESHA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 40 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O HIREKALMATA VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

7. HANUMANAHALLI JAGADEESHA S/O SRI BASAPPA 45 YEAS, VEERASHAIVA AGRICULTURIST R/O HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

3

8. A.B. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SRI SHEKHARAPPA 35 YEARS, LINGAYATHA CONTRACTOR, TALUK PRESIDENT R/O VILLAGE HONNALI TOWN.

9. J. RAJU S/O SRI JAYAPPA 34 YEARS, LINGAYATHA AGRICULTURIST, NYAMATHI TOWN HONNALI TALUK.

10. MANJUNATHA K.B., S/O SRI BASAVARAJAPPA 29 YEARS, KUNCHITIGA AGRICULTURIST R/O KONANAYAKANAHALLI HONNALI TALUK.

11. RAVIKUMARA C.K., S/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR 28 YEARS, LINGAYATHA OCC: ADVOCATE R/O. NYAMATHI TOWN HONNALI TALUK.

12. GANGADHARA N.D., S/O SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA 22 YEARS, LINGAYATHA BUSINESS, R/O NYAMATHI TOWN HONNALI TALUK.

13. M.H. KRISHNAPPA S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA 30 YEARS, KURUBAS CONTRACTOR, R/O DURGI GUDI LAYOUT HONNALI TOWN.

14. VEERUPAKSHAPPA M.G., S/O SRI HALESHAPPA 30 YEARS, LINGAYATHA AGRICULTURIST

4

R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

15. KUMARA H N S/O SRI GAALI NANJAPPA 31 YEARS, KURUBAS AGRICULTURIST R/O HONNALI TALUK.

16. PRASHANTH S/O SRI RAYAPPA 22 YEARS, KURUBAS AUTO DRIVER R/O HONNALI TOWN.

17. MANJUNATHA K., S/O SRI K. SHIVAPPA 26 YEARS, KURUBAS KUSTHI PATU R/O HONNALI TOWN.

18. SHANTHARAJ PATIL S/O SRI BARAMANAGOWDA 35 YEARS, LINGAYATHA CONTRACTOR R/O DURGI GUDI LAYOUT HONNALI TOWN.

19. H. NARASIMHAPPA S/O SRI PUTTAPPA 28 YEARS, KURUBAS AGRICULTURIST R/O KOTE STREET HONNALI TOWN.

20. CHANDRU S/O SRI KARIYAPPA 28 YEARS, KURUBAS AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOSAKERI HONNALI TOWN. ... RESPONDENTS

5

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.224/2008 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

IN CRL.P.NO.738/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P. RENUKACHARYA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 43 YEARS, M L A HONNALI, R/O HIREKALMATA HONNALI.

2. L V PATIL S/O HANUMANTHAGOWDA PATIL 38 YEARS, LINGAYAT AGRICULTURIST R/O KANKANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

3. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O SWAMY LINGAPPA 46 YEARS, KURUBA COOLIE WORK

6

R/O KUMBARAGUNDI STREET HONNALI TOWN.

4. SHANTHARAJA PATIL S/O BARAMAGOUDA PATIL 31 YEARS, LINGAYAT STAMP VENDOR BALAMURI VILLAGE, R/O DURGIGUDI HONNALI TOWN.

5. BISATI SURESH S/O BISATI BEERAPPA 37 YEARS, TALUK BJP PRESIDENT KURUBA, R/O DODDAKERI HONNALI TOWN.

6. BISATI NAGARAJA S/O BISATI BEERAPPA 46 YEARS, KURUBA LOTTERY TICKET VENDOR R/O BEHIND MASJID HONNALI TOWN.

7. SATTIGE LOKESH S/O SATTIGE KENCHAPPA 37 YEARS, KURUBA BUSINESS, R/O SOPPINAKERI HONNALI TOWN.

8. BIDARAGADDE CHANDRAPPA S/O BENAKAPPA 46 YEARS, LINGAYAT AGRICULTURIST R/O BIDARAGADDE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

9. KUNDURU G K ANJINAPPA S/O KARIBASAPPA 44 YEARS, LINGAYAT AGRICULTURIST R/O KUNDURU HONNALI TALUK.

7

10. ARUN KUMAR S/O LAKSHMANA 35 YEARS, KURUBA BUSINESS R/O PETE STREET HONNALI TOWN.

11. JUNJA NAIKA S/O NAGYA NAIKA 29 YEARS, BANJARA AGRICULTURIST R/O HANUMASAGARA HONNALI TALUK.

12. RAMESH S/O KARIBASAPPA 33 YEARS, KURUBA AGRICULTURIST R/O ARABAGATTE HONNALI TALUK.

13. C K RAVIKUMAR S/O BASAVARAJAPPA 27 YEARS, LINGAYAT CASSETTE SHOP R/O KUMBARA STREET NYAMATHI.

14. H M PATIL S/O MARULASIDDAPPA 32 YEARS, LINGAYAT AGRICULTURIST R/O MAHANTESHWARA STREET NYAMATHI.

15. RAJU S/O PANCHAKSHARAIAH 30 YEARS, JANGAMA B J P WORKMEN R/O HIREKALMATTA HONNALI TOWN.

8

16. SURESH S/O PANCHAKSHARAIAH 32 YEARS, JANGAMA WORKING IN BOREWELL COMPANY R/O HIREKALMATTA HONNALI TOWN.

17. SHANMUKAPPA S/O GULAPPA 38 YEARS, FLOWER VENDOR KURUBA, PETE STREET R/O BEHIND MASJID HONNALI TOWN.

18. SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O BASAPPA 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST LINGAYAT R/O VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

19. A B HANUMAHTAPPA S/O SHEKARAPPA 34 YEARS, LINGAYAT R/O ARAKERE HONNALI.

20. KADURAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA 33 YEARS, KURUBA CONTRACTOR R/O DEVANAYAKANAHALLI HONNALI TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.466/2004 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

9

IN CRL.P.NO.739/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P. RENUKACHARYA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH 45 YEARS, M L A, HONNALI TALUK HONNALI.

2. A B HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SHEKARAPPA 35 YEARS, LINGAYAT, BJP TALUK PRESIDENT HONNALI TALUK HONNALI.

3. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA 45 YEARS KURUBA, AGRICLUTURIST HURULAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI.

4. PIRYANAIKA S/O RAMA NAIKA 35 YEARS, BANJARA SAVALANGA HONNALI.

10

5. JEEVESHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA 40 YEARS, NAIKA COMMUNITY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, KUMKOVA VILLAGE, HONNALI.

6. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHEKARAPPA 30 YEARS, KURUBA, GARE WORK DODDAKERI HONNALI.

7. CHANNAVEERAPPAGOWDA S/O VEERAPPA 48 YEARS, LIONGAYAT, AGRICLTURIST HIREGONI, HONNALI TALUK HONNALI.

8. HALESHAPPA S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA 38 YEARS, BHOVI, AGRICLUTURIST TALUK PANCHAYATH VICE PRESIDENT, HONNALI.

9. LINGARAJ S/O SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA 30 YEARS, LINGAYATH, AGRICLUTURIST KOOLAMBI VILLAGE HONNALI.

10. H. MALLAPPA S/O SRI H. HALAPPA 46 YEARS, LINGAYATH, AGRICLUTURIST R/O MARIGUDI STREET NYAMATHI.

11. GADIGEPPA S/O SRI BASAPPA 30 YEARS, KUNCHITIGA, NARASAGONDANAHALLI HONNALI TALUK

11

HONNALI.

12. SANTHOSHKUMAR S/O SRI CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA 26 YEARS, LINGAYATH, SASVEHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK HONNALI.

13. D R RAJU S/O SRI UJJAPPA 32 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, DEVANAHAYAKANAHALLI HONNALI TOWN.

14. B H CHANDRAPPA S/O BENAKAPPA 37 YEARS, LINGAYATH, AGRICULTURIST BIDARAGADDE VILLAGE.

15. UBEDULLA S/O SRI IBRAHIM SAB 60 YEARS, CONTRACTOR DEVANAYAKANAHALLI HONNALI TOWN.

16. T M SHIVANAND S/O MANJAPPA 28 YEARS, VALMIKI, BELIMALLURU HONNALLI.

17. VEERESH S/O ESHWARAPPA 28 YEARS, BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK.

18. SADASHIVAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA 38 YEARS, LINGAYATH VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK.

12

19. JUNJA NAIKA S/O NANA NIKA 33 YEARS, BANJARA, HANUMASAGARA HONNALLI TALUK.

20. J RAJU S/O JAYAPPA 32 YEARS, LINGAYATH NYAMATHI, HONNALI TALUK.

21. S. OMKARI S/O SEVANAIKA 28 YEARS, HOSAJOGA HONNALI TALUK.

22. AJJAIAH S/O HULUBA BHOVI 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURST CHILURU VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

23. A. ISHWARAPPA S/O VEERAPPA 50 YEARS, B J P WORKER, CHATNIHALI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

24. IRYANAIKA S/O RAMANAIKA 52 YEARS, BANJARA, UJANIPURA VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

25. SHIVANNA S/O CHANNAMALAPPA 35 YEARS, LINGAYATH AGRICLTURIST, ARUNDI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

26. B. LOKESH S/O BASAPPA 30 YEARS, LINGAYATH,

13

ERECHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

27. H M PATEL S/O MARULASIDDAPPA 33 YEARS, LINGAYATH, NYAMATHI HONNALI TALUK.

28. BASAVARAJAPPA REDDY S/O SHIVAPPA REDDY 44 YEARS, AGRICLUTURIST NYAMATHI, HONNALLI.

29. K. RUDRESHAPPA S/O IRAPPA 46 YEARS, LINGAYATH GAJINAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI.

30. B. PARAMESHWARANAIK S/O BOJANAIK 30 YEARS, MACHIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI.

31. N S MANJUNATHA S/O SADASHIVAPPA 35 YEARS, LINGAYATH NELAHOLE VILLAGE HONNALLI.

32. K M MANJUNATHA S/O MANJAPPA 38 YEARS, VISHWAKARNA KACHIKOPPA VILLAGE HONNALI.

33. DHANANJAYA S/O NINGAPPA 32 YEARS, LINGAYATH KUNDURU VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

14

34. M G CHADNRAPPA S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA 45 YEARS, LINGAYATH GANGANAKOTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

35. S ASHOKA S/O K NAGAPPA 35 YEARS, LINGAYATH, GOWDARA STREET SURAHONNE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

36. NAGARAJ S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA 39 YEARS, LINGAYATH, HONNALI TALUK.

37. B YOGESH S/O CHICKAPPA 35 YEARS, HALUMATHA BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

38. N H RAVINDRANATHA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA 41 YEARS, KUNCHITIGA, NARASAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

39. A G LOHITHAPPA S/O A G NINGAPPA 36 YEARS, KUNCHITIGA, NARASAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

40. M G SIDDESH S/O RUDRAPPA 31 YEARS, LINGAYATH KUMBALURU VILAGE HONNALLI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS

15

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.281/2007 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

IN CRL.P.NO.740/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P. RENUKACHARYA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 43 YEARS, JANGAMA, M.L.A. HONNALI, HIREKALMATA, HONNALI TOWN.

2. BISATI SURESHA S/O SRI BISATI BEERAKPPA, 37 YEARS, KURUBA, TALUK BJP PRESIDENT, R/O DODDAKERI, HONNALI TOWN.

3. BISATI NAGARAJA S/O SRI BISATI BEERAPPA, 46 YEARS, KURUBA, LOTTERY TICKET MERCHANT, RESIDING BEHIND MASJID,

16

HONNALI TOWN.

4. SHANTHARAJ PATIL S/O SRI BARAMAGOUDA PATIL 31 YEARS, LINGAYAT, STAMP VENDOR, BALAMURI VILLAGE, R/AT DURGIGUDI, HONNALI TOWN.

5. SATTIGE LOKESH S/O SATTIGE KENCHAPPA, 37 YEARS, BUSINESS, KURUBA, R/O SOPPINAKERI, HONNALI TOWN.

6. SHANMUKAPPA S/O GULAPPA, 38 YEARS, FLOWER MERCHANT, KURUBA, R/O BEHIND MASJID, PETE STREET, HONNALI TOWN.

7. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O SWAMY LINGAPPA, 46 YEARS, KURUBA, COOLIE WORK, R/O KUMBARAGUNDI STREET, HONNALI TOWN.

8. ARUNKUMAR S/O LAKSHMANA, 35 YERAS, KURUBA, BUSINESS, R/O PETE STREET, HONNALI TOWN.

9. RAJU S/O PANCHAKSHRAIAH 30 YEARS, JANGAMA, BJP WORKMEN, R/O HIREKALMATA, HONNALI TOWN.

10. SURESHA S/O PANCHAKASHARAIAH,

17

32 YEARS, WORKING IN BOREWELL COMPANY, JANGAMA, R/O HIREKALMATA, HONNALI TALUK.

11. KADURAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA, 33 YEARS, KURUBAS, CONTRACTOR, R/O JEEVANAIAHNAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK.

12. BIDARAGADDE CHANDRAPPA S/O BENAKAPPA, 46 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURIST, R/O BIDARAGDDE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

13. KUNDURU B K ANJINAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA, 44 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, LINGAYAT, R/O KUNDURU, HONNALI TALUK.

14. SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O BASAPPA 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, LINGAYAT, R/O DODDERI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

15. A G HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SHEKARAPPA, 34 YERS, LINGAYAT, R/O ARAKERE, HONNALLI TALUK.

16. H M PATIL S/O MARULASIDDAPPA, 32 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MAHANTESHWARA ROAD, NYAMATHI.

17. C K RAVI KUMAR S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,

18

27 YEARS, LINGAYAT CASSETTE SHOP R/O. KUMBARA STREET, NYAMATHI.

18. JUNJA NAIKA S/O NAGYA NAIKA, 29 YEARS, BANJARA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HANUMASAGARA, HONNALI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.489/2004 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

IN CRL.P.NO.741/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. SULEMAN KHAN S/O. KHADER ALI KHAN, 48 YEARS, VICE PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHAYAT, SASUVEHALLI VILALGE, HONNALI TALUK.

19

2. IMDAD ALI KHAN S/O KHADER ALI KHAN, 35 YEARS, OCC:AGENT, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

3. NAUSHAD ALI KHAN S/O KHADER ALI KHAN, 32 YEARS, BUS CONDUCTOR, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

4. JABIULLA S/O LATIF SAB 32 YEARS, BUS AGENT R/O SASUVEHALLI.

5. KHALEEL @ GUJJARI KHALEEL S/O SHAMSUDDEEN 35 YEARS, GUJARI WORK, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

6. AMJAD S/O MOHD. ALI KHAN 35 YEARS, KEB WORK R/O SASUVEHALLI.

7. MEDICAL SHOP SIDDIQUE S/O KHURUM SABA 32 YEARS, BUISINESS, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

8. CONTRACTOR JABBAR SAB S/O ALTAF ALI KHAN, 40 YEARS, CONTRACTOR WORK, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

9. MANSOOR ALI KHAN S/O ALTAF ALI KHAN 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

20

10. BEEDA SHOP JAMEEL AHMED S/O KHALEEL SABA 35 YEARS, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

11. CASSETTE SHOP LATIF SAB @ NAZEER S/O MOHD. HUSSAIN, 30 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

12. RAHMATH S/O AMANULLA KHAN 25 YEARS, RICE MERCHANT, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

13. AMJAD S/O MOHD.ALI KHAN 38 YEARS, K.E.B. BILL CONTRACTOR, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

14. KHALEEL S/O HAYAT CHURCHAGUNDI, 35 YERAS, MADANI TAJ HOTEL, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

15. RAFEEQ @ PAPA S/O NOOR JAN, OMELET SHOP R/O SASUVEHALLI.

16. AMANULLA KHAN S/O MADAAR SAB, RICE MERCHANT, R/O KULAGATTI ROAD, SASUVEHALLI.

17. AKBAR ALI S/O. MALLIK SAB, 28 YEARS, TAILOR, R/O MALLIKATTE GRAMA.

18. RAHAMATH S/O JALEEL SAB, 35 YERS, BUSINESS,

21

R/O ANEKAL LAYOUT, SASUVEHALLI.

19. FAZIL S/O IMAM SAB 25 YEARS, BEEDA SHOP, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

20. AFSAR ALI KAN S/O HASAN ALI KHAN, 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

21. KHALEEMULLA S/O KHALEEL SAB CONTRACTOR, R/O NEAR KHABAR STAN, SASUVEHALLI.

22. WAZIR ANEKAL @ CASSETTE SHOP NAZEER S/O MOHD. HUSSAIN SAB, 35 YEARS, CASSETTE SHOP, R/O ANEKAL, SASUVEHALLI.

23. SWALEHA CHARCHIGUNDI S/O YOUSUF SAB, 25 YEARS, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O SASUVEHALLI.

24. MANDAKKI BABU @ RAZOR BABU, S/O MAHIMAAN BEE, 35 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O ANEKAL LAYOUT, SASUVEHALLI. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.461/2008 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

22

IN CRL.P.NO.742/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P. RENUKACHARYA 47 YEARS, S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH, JANGAMA M.L.A ., R/O. HIREKALMATA, HONNALI.

2. SHIVASHANKARAIAH 55 YEARS, JANGAMA S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH, PRINCIPAL OF MRUTHYUNJAYA COLLEGE, R/O. HIREKALMATA, HONNALI.

3. M.P. RAMESHA S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 40 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O. HIREKALMATA, HONNALI.

4. M.P. RAJAPPA S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 36 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O. HIREKALMATA, HONNALI.

5. M.P. VISHWANATHA ARADHYA

23

S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 42 YEARS, JANGAMA BJP WORKMEN R/O. HIREKALMATA, HONNALI.

6. HANUMANAHALLI JAGADEESH S/O LATE BASAPPA, 45 YEARS, VEERASHAIVA, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

7. A.B. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SHEKARAPPA, 35 YEARS, LINGAYAT, CONTRACTOR, BJP WORKMEN, R/O. ARAKERE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

8. SURATURU RAMANAGOUDA PARAMESHWARAPPA 42 YEARS, LINGAYAT BJP WORKMEN, R/O. SURATURU VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

9. HANUMANAHALLI BASAVARAJAPPA S/O G. BASAPPA 58 YEARS, LINGAYAT AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. M. HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

10. G. RAJU S/O JAYAPPA, 34 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. NYAMATHI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

11. MANJUNATHA K.S S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, 29 YEARS, KUNCHITIGARA, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. KONANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE,

24

HONNALI TALUK.

12. RAVIKUMAR C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR, 25 YEARS, LINGAYAT, ADVOCATE R/O. NYAMATHI VILLAGE.

13. GANGADHAR N.D S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, 22 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. NYAMATHI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

14. M.H. KRISHNAPPA S/O HANUMANTHA, 30 YEARS, KURUBA, CONTRACTOR, R/O. DURGIGUDI LAYOUT, HONNALI TALUK.

15. M.G. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O HALESHAPPA, 30 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

16. KUMARA H.N S/O GALI NARASAPPA, 31 YEARS, KURUBA, AGRICULTURE WORK, HONNALI TALUK.

17. PRASHANTH S/O. RAYAPPA, 22 YEARS, KURUBA AUTO DRIVER, R/O. HONNALI TALUK.

18. MANJUNATHA K S/O K. SHIVAPPA, 26 YEARS, KURUBA, KUSTIPATU,

25

R/O. HONNALI TALUK.

19. SHANTHARAJ PATIL S/O BHARAMANAGOUDA PATIL 35 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. DURGIGUDI LAYOUT, HONNALI TALUK.

20. H. NARASIMHAPPA S/O PUTTAPPA, 28 YEARS, KURUBA, AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. KOTE AREA, HONNALI TALUK.

21. CHANDRU S/O KARIYAPPA, 28 YEARS, KURUBA AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. HOSAKERI STREET, HONNALI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.223/2008 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

IN CRL.P.NO.744/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER

26

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. JAFARULLA S/O ABDUL KHADER 30 YEARS, BATTERY REPAIR WORK SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

2. NAUSHAD S/O MOHIDDEEN SAB 25 YEARS, GARE WORK, R/O MALLIKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

3. JAFAR S/O ABDUL REHMAN 26 YEARS, VEGETABLE VENDOR R/O TIPPUNAGARA HIREKERURU.

4. IMAM SAB S/O BASHA SAB 20 YEARS, KODAPANA BUSINESS R/O MALIKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

5. SHOUKAT ALI S/O SHAMEER SAB 25 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O MALLIKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

6. MUNEER S/O PEERASAB 22 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O MALLIKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

7. HUSSAIN ALI S/O IMAM SAB

27

23 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O MALLIKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

8. MAQBUL SAB S/O MADAR SAB 60 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK.

9. HYDER ALI KHAN S/O JABBAR KHAN 65 YEARS, CHIRAYATHI WORK R/O SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

10. KOLI BABU S/O BASHA SAB 38 YEARS, CHICKEN BUSINESS R/O SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK.

11. MALLIKATTE PATIL S/O SUBAN SAB 50 YEARS, CONTRACTOR WORK R/O MALLIKATTE VILLAGE.

12. WAZIR ANEKAL S/O CHAMAN SAB 30 YEARS, R/O ANEKAL SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

13. SWALEHA CHARCHIGUNDI S/O YOUSUF SAB 25 YEARS, CHIRAITHI WORK R/O SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

14. MANDAKKI BABU @ RAZOR BABU S/O MAHIMAN BEE 35 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O ANEKAL LAYOUT SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

15. AZRAT ALI KHAN

28

S/O MOULA SAB 18 YEARS, HAMALI WORK R/O MALLIKATTE VILLAGE.

16. RAHAMATHI S/O MOHINUDDEEN SHAH 25 YEARS, CHIRAYTHI WORK R/O ANEKAL LAYOUT SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

17. NOORULLA S/O KHALEEL SAB 35 YEARS, CHIRAYTHI WORK R/O ANEKAL LAYOUT SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

18. FIROZ S/O NAZEER AHMED 25 YEARS, COLLIE WORK R/O SANTHE MAIDAN SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

19. AMANULLA S/O BASHA SAB 35 YEARS, MUTTON STALL R/O SANTHE MAIDAN SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

20. TAKSHIR S/O RASHID SAB 28 YEARS, CHIRAITHI WORK R/O SANTHE MAIDAN SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

21. REHAMAN KHAN MESTRI S/O GHORI KHAN 28 YEARS, MESTRI WORK R/O SANTHE MAIDAN SASUVEHALLI.

22. FAIROZ S/O KHALEEL 25 YEARS, COOLIE WORK

29

R/O UPPARA STREET SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

23. AKBAR S/O JALEEL SAB 28 YEARS, COOLIE WORK R/O UPPARA STREET SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

24. NIZAMUDDIN @ NIJJU S/O MUJIBULLA 18 YEARS, FISH MERCHANT R/O UPPARA STREET SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

25. MEHABOOB S/O KHADER SAB @ BEEDI KHADAR SAB 45 YEARS, BUS AGENT R/O SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE.

26. ALTAF AHMED (ROWDY) S/O JABBAR KHAN AGED 55 YEARS, CONTRACTOR R/O SASUVEHALLI VILLAGE. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.457/2008 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

IN CRL.P.NO.813/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

30

BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P.RENUKACHARYA S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 42 YEARS, M.L.A, R/O BEHIND GANGA SAW MILL, HONNALI TOWN.

2. BISATI SURESHA S/O SRI BISATI BEERAPPA, 37 YEARS, KURUBAS TALUK BJP PRESIDENT, R/O BEHIND MOSQUE, HONNALI TOWN.

3. R KADURAPPA S/O SRI KARIYAPPA, 33 YEARS, KURUBAS, CONTRCTOR, R/O DEVANAYAKANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK.

4. SHANTHARAJ PTIL S/O SRI BHARAMANAGOUDA, 30 YEARS, LINGAYAT TALUK, BJP SECRETARY, BALAMURI, HONNALI TQ. NOW R/AT HONNALI TOWN.

5. BISATI NAGARAJ S/O SRI BISATI BEERAPPA, 45 YEARS, KURUBAS, LOTTERY TICKET MERCHANT, R/O DEVANAYAKANAHALLI, HONNALI TQ.

6. SATTIGE LOKESH S/O SRI SATTIGE KENCHAPPA, 38 YEARS, KURUBAS,

31

BUSINESS, R/O SOPPIKARE, HONNALI TOWN.

7. BIDARAKATTE CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI BENAKAPPA, 46 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURIST, R/O BIDARAGADDE VILALGE, HONNALI TALUK.

8. KUNDURU ANGINAPPA S/O SRI KARIBASAPPA, 41 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUNDURU VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

9. KANAKANAHALLI PATIL S/O SRI HANUMANTHAGOUDA PATIL, 37 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

10. ARUNKUMAR S/O SRI H M LAKSHMANAPPA 35 YEARS, KURUBAS, BUSINESS, R/O PETE STREET, HONNALI TOWN.

11. DODDERI SOMASHEKAR S/O SRI BASAPPA, 40 YEARS, LINGAYAT AGRICULTURIST & CONTRACTOR, R/O DODDERI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

12. SHANMUKAPPA S/O SRI GOLYAPPA, 40 YEARS, FLOWER MERCHANT R/O DODDAPETE, HONNALI TOWN.

32

13. A B HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SRI SHEKHARAPPA, 34 YEARS, LINGAYAT, B.J.P. PRL. SECRETARY, R/O ANKASHI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

14. JUNJANAIKA S/O SRI NAGYANAIKA, 28 YEARS, BJP SC/ST MORCHA PRESIDENT, R/O HANUMASAGARA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK.

15. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O SRI SWAMILINGAPPA, 42 YEARS, KURUBS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DODDAKERI, HONNALI TOWN.

16. RAMESH S/O SRI KARIBASAPPA 35 YEARS, LINGAYAT, AGRICULTURIST, R/O AMBAKATTE VILALGE, HONNALI TALUK.

17. RAJU S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 28 YEARS, JANGAMA, CHANNESH BOREWELL AGENCY, R/O BEHIND GANGA SAW MILL, HONNALI TOWN.

18. RAMESH S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH, 35 YEARS, JANGAMA, CHANNESH BOREWELL AGENCY, R/O BEHIND GANGA SAW MILL, HIRIEKALMATA, HONNALI TOWN.

33

19. H M PATIL S/O SRI MARULASIDDAPPA, 30 YEARS, LINGAYAT, BUSINESS, R/O MAHANTESHWARA ROAD, NYAMATHI VILLAGE, HONNALI TOWN.

20. C K RAVIKUMAR S/O SRI BASAVARAJAPPA, 40 YEARS, LINGAYAT, CASETTE BUSINESS, R/O KUMBARA STREET, NYAMATHI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.457/2004 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

IN CRL.P.NO.812/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NYAMATHI P.S. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

AND:

1. M.P. RENUKACHARYA 42 YEARS, S/O SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH, JANGAMA, M.L.A. R/O. BEHIND GANGA SAW MILL, HONNALI TOWN.

34

2. SEENAPPA S/O RANGAPPA, 48 YEARS, KUNCHITIGARA, R/O. DEVIKOPPA STREET, SURAHONNE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2011 IN C.C.NO.621/2005 PASSED BY THE JMFC, HONNALI AND ALLOW THE PRAYER IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER S.321 Cr.P.C.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The respondents are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under various sections of the Indian

Penal Code. When the cases were at the stage of trial, the

Public Prosecutor filed separate applications under S.321

Cr.P.C., proposing to withdraw the prosecution launched against the accused. Learned Magistrate, having passed an order of rejection, criminal petitions were filed. The same having been rejected, again applications were filed under

S.321 Cr.P.C., before the learned Trial Judge, proposing to withdraw the prosecution. The applications having been rejected on 07.10.2011, these petitions were filed to quash

35

the aforesaid order/s and allow the prayer made in the applications moved by the prosecution.

2. Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP, contended that there is failure on the part of the learned

Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. He submitted that the impugned orders being perverse are liable to be set aside.

3. Perused the impugned order /s and considered the submissions made by the learned HCGP. The point for consideration is, whether the learned Magistrate has committed any error of law in rejecting the applications filed under S.321 Cr.P.C.?

4. In SHEONANDAN PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

AND OTHERS, (1987) 1 SCC 288, Apex Court has held as

follows:

“76. Section 333, which was deleted consequent on the discontinuance of original criminal trials in the High Court, has still a bearing, while considering the scope of Section 321 corresponding to Section 494 of the earlier Code and a comparative study of the two sections and their scope will be appropriate. Both the sections pertain to withdrawal of prosecutions though at different levels. A harmonious view

36

should, in my view, prevail in the reading of the two sections. Section 333 does not give any discretion or choice to the High Court when a motion is made under it. Such being the case, Section 321 must also be construed, as conferring powers within circumscribed limits to the Court to refuse to grant permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. If such a harmonious view is not taken it would then lead to the anomalous position that while under Section 333, a High Court has to yield helplessly to the representation of the Advocate General and stop the proceedings and discharge or acquit the accused, the subordinate courts when moved under Section 321 Cr.P.C would have a power to refuse to give consent for withdrawal of the prosecution if it is of opinion that the case did not suffer from paucity of evidence. The legislature would not have intended to confer greater powers on the subordinate courts than on the High Court in the exercise of powers under Section 494 of the old Code and Section 333 respectively. It would, therefore, be just and reasonable to hold that while conferring powers upon the subordinate courts under Section 494 to give consent to a Public Prosecutor withdrawing the prosecution, the legislature had only intended that the courts should perform a supervisory function and not an adjudicatory function in the legal sense of the term.

77. Section 321 reads as follows:

"321. Withdrawal from prosecution.--The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced, 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; and, upon such withdrawal,-

(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;

(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences. (Proviso omitted)

37

This section enables the Public Prosecutor, in charge of the case to withdraw from the prosecution of any person at any time before the judgment is pronounced, but this application for withdrawal has to get the consent of the court and if the court gives consent for such withdrawal the accused will be discharged if no charge has been framed or acquitted if charge has been framed or where no such charge is required to be framed. It clothes the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of any person, accused of an offence both when no evidence is taken or even if entire evidence has been taken. The outer limit for the exercise of this power is "at any time before the Judgment is pronounced".

78. The section gives no indication as to the grounds on which the Public Prosecutor may make the application, or the considerations on which the Court is to grant its consent. The initiative is that of the Public Prosecutor and what the Court has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. The judicial function implicit in the exercise of the judicial discretion for granting the consent would normally mean that the Court has to satisfy itself 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.

79. The court's function is to give consent. This section does not obligate the court to record reasons before consent is given. However, I should not be taken to hold that consent of the Court is a matter of course. When the Public Prosecutor makes the application for withdrawal after taking into consideration all the materials before him, the Court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such materials and on such consideration, either gives consent or declines consent. The section should not be construed to mean that the Court has to give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. If on a reading of the order giving consent, a higher Court is satisfied that such consent was given on an

38

overall consideration of the materials available, the order giving consent has necessarily to be upheld.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. In R.M.TEWARI Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND

OTHERS, (1996) 2 SCC 610, Apex Court, while dealing with the justifiability of withdrawal from the prosecution has held as follows:

“7. It is, therefore, clear that the Designated Court was right in taking the view that withdrawal from prosecution is not to be permitted mechanically by the court on an application for that purpose made by the public prosecutor. It is equally clear that the public prosecutor also has not to act mechanically in the discharge of his statutory function under Section 321 CrPC on such a recommendation being made by the Review Committee; and that it is the duty of the public prosecutor to satisfy himself that it is a fit case for withdrawal from prosecution before he seeks the consent of the court for that purpose.

8. It appears that in these matters, the public prosecutor did not fully appreciate the requirements of Section 321 Cr.P.C and made the applications for withdrawal from prosecution only on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Committee. It was necessary for the public prosecutor to satisfy himself in each case that the case is fit for withdrawal from prosecution in accordance with the settled principles indicated in the decisions of this Court and then to satisfy the Designated Court of the existence of a ground which permits withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC.” (emphasis supplied)

39

6. In ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, (2000) 8 SCC 710, Apex Court, has

held as follows:

“19. The law, therefore, is that though the Government may have ordered, directed or asked a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from a prosecution, it is for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind to all the relevant material and, in good faith, to be satisfied thereon that the public interest will be served by his withdrawal from the prosecution. In turn, the court has to be satisfied, after considering all that material, that the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind independently thereto, that the Public Prosecutor, acting in good faith, is of the opinion that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest, and that such withdrawal will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice.

20. It must follow that the application under Section 321 must aver that the Public Prosecutor is, in good faith, satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause injustice. The material that the Public Prosecutor has considered must be set out, briefly but concisely, in the application or in an affidavit annexed to the application or, in a given case, placed before the court, with its permission, in a sealed envelope. The court has to give an informed consent. It must be satisfied that this material can reasonably lead to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution will serve the public interest; but it is not for the court to weigh the material. The court must be satisfied that the Public Prosecutor has considered the material and, in good faith, reached the conclusion that his withdrawal from the prosecution will serve the public interest. The court must also consider whether the grant of consent may thwart or stifle the course of law or result in manifest

40

injustice. If, upon such consideration, the court accords consent, it must make such order on the application as will indicate to a higher court that it has done all that the law requires it to do before granting consent.

***** ***** *****

42. The satisfaction for moving an application under Section 321 CrPC. has to be of the Public Prosecutor which in the nature of the case in hand has to be based on the material provided by the State. The nature of the power to be exercised by the Court while deciding application under Sectopm 321 is delineated by the decision of this Court in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 288]. This decision holds that grant of consent by the court is not a matter of course and when such an application is filed by the Public Prosecutor after taking into consideration the material before him, the court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such material and on such consideration either gives consent or declines consent. It also lays down that the court has to see that the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law or suffers from such improprieties or illegalities as to cause manifest injustice if consent is given.

43. True, the power of the court under Section 321 is supervisory but that does not mean that while exercising that power, the consent has to be granted on mere asking. The court has to examine that all relevant aspects have been taken into consideration by the Public Prosecutor and/or by the Government in exercise of its executive function.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. In RAHUL AGARWAL Vs. RAKESH JAIN AND

ANOTHER, (2005) 2 SCC 377, Apex Court, while dealing with

what should be the lawful consideration while considering

41

the application for withdrawal, under S.321 of Cr.P.C., after survey of the case law on the subject, has held as follows:

“10. From these decisions as well as other decisions on the same question, the law is very clear that the withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in the interest of justice. Even if the Government directs the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution and an application is filed to that effect, the court must consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether the withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice. If the case is likely to end in an acquittal and the continuance of the case is only causing severe harassment to the accused, the court may permit withdrawal of the prosecution. If the withdrawal of prosecution is likely to bury the dispute and bring about harmony between the parties and it would be in the best interest of justice, the court may allow the withdrawal of prosecution. The discretion under Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure is to be carefully exercised by the Court having due regard to all the relevant facts and shall not be exercised to stifle the prosecution which is being done at the instance of the aggrieved parties or the State for redressing their grievance. Every crime is an offence against the society and if the accused committed an offence, society demands that he should be punished. Punishing the person who perpetrated the crime is an essential requirement for the maintenance of law and order and peace in the society. Therefore, the withdrawal of the prosecution shall be permitted only when valid reasons are made out for the same.” (emphasis supplied)

8. In the instant case, the Public Prosecutor, in the application/s for withdrawal of the prosecution, having referred to the Government Order, mechanically sought

42

permission of the Court. It is upon consideration of all the materials, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order/s. Learned Magistrate having applied his mind to the case of the prosecution and having found no valid reason to permit the withdrawal, has passed the order/s of rejection. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the impugned orders are perverse. The impugned order/s have not been shown to be illegal by the learned HCGP.

9. The impugned order/s being in consonance with the settled principles of law, as per the decisions of the Apex Court, noticed supra and S.321 of Cr.P.C., having conferred upon the learned Magistrate, the power to assess, whether a prima facie case is made out or not and being satisfied that the consent for withdrawal cannot be granted, the impugned order/s have been passed.

10. Considering the reasons assigned in the impugned orders, the application/s filed by the Public

Prosecutor for withdrawal of the cases being untenable,

43

have rightly been rejected. Hence, I do not find any

justification to exercise the power under S.482 of Cr.P.C., and grant prayer in these petitions.

Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit, are rejected. The learned Magistrate shall decide the cases independently and without being influenced by the order/s on the applications filed under S.321 Cr.P.C.

Sd/- JUDGE

sac* ca/-