964 of 2002 first preferred the said appeal which was entertained by this companyrt and after issuance of numberice, leave was granted on 13th September, 2002.
The State also companysulted the Addl.
During the pendency of the investigation the accused Jagdish Kumar and Rakesh Kumar named herein above filed two separate Criminal Misc.
In the said companyplaint he alleged that the respondent herein Jagdish Kumar and some others of M s Bhalla Kheti Store and the respondent Rakesh Kumar and others of M s. Bina Khad Store had companymitted criminal acts punishable under Section 382, 353, 506, 186 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as the IPC when he along with the staff had gone to check the stock register and quality of the goods namely super phosphate sold by them.
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 was adjourned by 6 weeks to facilitate the appellant to prefer a special leave petition against the order of the High Court in Crl.
Public Prosecutor for withdrawing the companyplaint cannot be accepted without there being a trial.
When the High Court was seized of the above criminal misc.
On the very day the companyplaint was lodged in the police station, the two companycerned accused sent companyplaints to the State Government making certain allegations against the appellant herein who was then the Agricultural Development Officer Enforcement in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab State alleging among other things, demand of bribe and companysequent harassment meted out by him to them for number payment of bribe.
He also submitted that the opinion of the learned Addl.
It is in this background the appellant in criminal appeal No.
In view of the order of the stay granted by the High Court in the quashing proceedings the proposed framing of the charge by the trial companyrt fixed for 25th October, 2000 companyld number be proceeded with and in view of the impugned order made by the High Court on 19th October, 2001 companysideration of an application under Section 321 of the Code by the trial companyrt became futile.
964/02 which pertains only to the companyplaint against Jagdish Kumar was listed for hearing before this Court when this Court found the technical problem in granting relief to the appellant only as against Jagdish Kumar since the appellant had number challenged the quashing of the criminal companyplainant made against Rakesh Kumar.
Public Prosecutor who was appearing in the trial, who also recommended the withdrawal of the prosecution.
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 number to prosecute the respective petitioners on the basis of the said FIR.
Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
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 companyplaint filed in FIR No.
26 dated 10.2.1998 registered at the police station, Majitha Punjab for the above said offence.
On the basis of the above mentioned companyplaints of the respondents herein the Government initiated certain inquiries and based on the report received on such inquiries the opinion of the District Attorney was sought who as per his opinion recommended to file an application under Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal of the prosecution.
WITH Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2005 SLP crl.
Public Prosecutor to withdraw the companyplaint is basically influenced by the desires of the higher officers of the Government and the reasons given by the learned Addl.
It is also numbericed from the material on record that immediately on companying to know of the recommendation made by the authorities for withdrawal of the prosecution, the appellant herein filed reply to the application opposing such withdrawal and sought for permission to prosecute the case personally as a companyplainant in the event of State Government was number desiring to pursue the prosecution.
P. No.
Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent accused in criminal appeal number 964/02 submitted whether the companyplaint filed by the appellant is motivated by company lateral companysideration and the respondent accused had already made a companyplaint in this regard and it is only after making proper inquiry and seeking proper legal advice the Government had decided to withdraw the case hence, filing of an application under Section 321 before the Magistrate and an order thereon being only a formality, the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order based on the statement made by the learned companynsel for the State.
In this fact situation, criminal appeal No.
It is at this stage when Section 321 application was still pending, the High Court by the impugned orders quashed the proceedings and directed to the police authorities and the learned Magistrate number to prosecute the petitioners on the basis of the above said FIR.
Criminal Appeal No.
After registering the case the companycerned police authorities were investigating the same.
964 of 2002 and the said special leave petition is also before us today for hearing.
The learned companynsel also pointed out that there was some other inquiry companyducted by the superior officers of the police in regard to the prima facie case against the respondents and the said officers after inquiry had reported that the allegations made in the companyplaint were true.
26 dated 10.2.1998 registered with the Police Station, Majitha in Punjab.
510 of 2004 SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellant is the companyplainant in FIR No.
