TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as 'the Code') before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. When the High Court was seized of the above criminal misc. petitions, in both the petitions a statement was made on behalf of the State that a decision has been taken by the Government to withdraw the complaint filed in FIR No. 26 dated 10.2.1998 registered at the police station, Majitha (Punjab) for the above said offence. Recording the said statement the High Court in two identical orders quashed the said FIR and gave directions to the police and the learned Magistrate not to prosecute the respective petitioners on the basis of the said FIR. It is these two orders which are challenged before us in the above criminal appeal. Before we proceed to examine the correctness of the impugned orders of the High Court it is necessary to note certain other developments that took place during the pendency of the quashing petition in the High Court. On the very day the complaint was lodged in the police station, the two concerned accused sent complaints to the State Government making certain allegations against the appellant herein who was then the Agricultural Development Officer (Enforcement) in the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court in Crl. M.P. No. 11127/03 pertaining to Rakesh Kumar also and when such a special leave petition was filed the same was tagged along with the criminal appeal No. 964 of 2002 and the said special leave petition is also before us today for hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted the High Court without going into the merits of the complaint that was sought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code erred in accepting the statement made on behalf of the State Government and then proceedings to quash the complaint solely on the ground that the government had decided to drop the prosecution. He further contended that the High Court further erred in issuing a direction to the police authorities and the learned Magistrate not to prosecute the petitioners on the basis of the concerned FIR even before an application under Section 321 of the Code was entertained by the trial court. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders of quashing the complaint are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non- application of mind itself. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sheo Nandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle 136 is discretionary and it is only in a case when the appellant is able to show exceptional circumstances exist in his case and that non-interference would cause grave injustice, then alone, this Court could exercise its power under Article 136 of the Constitution. For this proposition, he relied on a decision of this Court in Taherakhatoon ( D) by Lrs. Vs. Salambin Mohammad [ 1999 (2) SCC 635]. The learned counsel tried to point out the complaint in question was of the year 1998 and there has been no progress before the trial court and assuming that the High Court is technically wrong in quashing the complaint based on the submission of the learned advocate for the State no injustice would be caused to the appellant. In the facts of the present case, therefore, on the basis of the decision in Taherakhatoon ( D) by Lrs.(supra) we should refuse to exercise our discretion vested under Article 136 of the Constitution. Though, we are in agreement with the ratio laid down by this Court in Taherakhatoon ( D) by Lrs.u (supra) we do not think the facts of this case would persuade us to refuse relief sought for by the appellant. As stated above, what is pending before the High court wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atarajan Vs. B.K. Subba Rao [2003 (2) SCC 76] and Ayyub Vs. Abdul Jabbar [2002 (3) SCC 510] wherein this Court has consistently laid down the parameters, the duty of the Law Officer and the Court in filing and considering such an application under Section 321 of the Code. Any direction from our side at this stage would only hinder an independent application of mind by the concerned court if and when such application is taken up for consideration. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint filed by the appellant or the application for withdrawal filed or to be filed by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code, we think it prudent to merely quash the impugned order of the High Court and leave the parties to pursue their remedies available in law. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. Criminal Appeal No.334of 2005 Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is a delay of 680 days in preferring this petition which as noted above came to be filed only after criminal appeal No. 964 of 2002 came up for hearing before this Court. At that point of time itself the court felt that there was an error on the part of the appellant not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
