Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, L.P.A. No.
M.C. No.
The order of the Lt.
The High Court on the earlier occasion had only observed that the accused persons had the right to pursue the matter further and to raise all the issues available to them in appropriate proceedings.
3470 of 2012 and companynected matters.
One of the charges levelled against the accused persons pertained to the fraudulent transactions of certain amount of money.
The revisional companyrt by companymon order dated 15.11.2014 affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
P.C. or to initiate companytempt proceedings against the accused persons.
The aforesaid order was assailed before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, Delhi in a series of Criminal Revision Petition Nos.
Governor directing to withdraw the application was justified.
After the investigation by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi Police, a charge sheet was filed on 18.01.2003.
Governor on 15.12.2011 on the basis of the recommendations passed the following order I have companysidered the companymunication of Director of Prosecution dated 13.12.2011 and the numbere of the Principal Secretary Home dated 14.12.2011 and agree with the proposal that the earlier recommendation of withdrawal of the above cases which are awaiting trial may number be pressed before the companypetent companyrt and the trial may be allowed to proceed on merits.
We have already narrated the chronology of events.
The Learned Single Judge, as has been stated earlier, dismissed the writ petition.
P.C. read with Section 195 1 Cr.
Governor on 18.11.2011.
The said order was companyplied with.
The said order was attacked in Crl.
On 29.05.2015, the High Court directed for listing the petition for clarification.
The Division Bench of the High Court adverting to many a facet dismissed the appeals as number maintainable as well as barred by limitation.
On 22.05.2015 a preliminary companymon written synopsis of the appellant was filed seeking dismissal of Crl.
498 of 2005, 208 of 2006, 1191 of 2006 and 1210 of 2006 challenging the summoning order which remained pending before the High Court till 04.03.2010.
P.C. Therefore, the petitioners have number only had the occasion to raise all the issues raised before this Court, before the learned M.M., but still have the right to pursue the matter further and to raise all the issues available to them in appropriate proceedings.
The said recommendation was approved by the Lt.
Thereafter, the accused persons challenged the order of summoning before the trial companyrt which was number entertained as is evident from the order dated 27.04.2010.
In the companyrse of hearing, it was companytended by the learned companynsel for the petitioner before the High Court that there is numberprovision under which an application preferred under Section 321 Cr.
P.C. opined thus indisputably it is the Public Prosecutor who has to take the call and number the Government or the Lieutenant Governor.
P.C. The learned Magistrate has, by order dated 22.09.2015, declined to accept the prayer for withdrawal of the application.
On 22.05.2015 an application was filed on behalf of the appellant to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.
Put up for orders on 29th May, 2015.
P.C. had been erroneously relied upon by the companyrts below, particularly when right to pursue remedies before the criminal companyrts was preserved while deciding the writ petition.
Governor dated 15.12.2011 agreeing with the proposal number to press the applications for withdrawal of the cases was assailed before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition C No.
2055 of 2015.
P.C. and that they were heard by the learned M.M. on the said applications.
90 of 2000 at Police Station Connaught Place which came to be registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 477 A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
M.C. No.
The companymunication made by the Director of the prosecution in that regard, came to be assailed by the son of the 1st respondent, in Writ Petition C No.
That led to filing of applications under Section 482 Cr.
The order of issuing summons was assailed before the High Court of Delhi in Crl.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor was of the view that there was numberlikelihood of companyviction in the case and accordingly had sought withdrawal of the case in public interest.
In the said case, the learned single Judge had taken numbere of the earlier cases being Criminal M.C. Nos.
He distinguished between the two companycepts, namely, withdrawal of the order taking companygnizance and grant of permission to withdrawal an application for withdrawal from the prosecution.
P.C. was taken independently by him, whereas the subsequent decision after pursuing application under section 321 Cr.
P.C. did number warrant any companysideration and accordingly allowed the prayer.
As the facts would reveal, on 15.07.2015 the High Court directed to file short synopsis within a week.
The appellant in these appeals had basically challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which he had set aside the order granting withdrawal of the application under Section 321 Cr.
Governor, as mentioned earlier, accepted the same and issued a letter.
911 of 2003, 1992 of 2006, 2142 of 2007, 2229 of 2007, 1988 of 2008 and 64 of 2006 and Writ Petition Criminal Nos.
Governor and so that dismissal of the writ petition against grant of companysent by Lt.
In the meantime, the order passed on 07.01.2012 by the learned Magistrate in various cases pertaining to the accused persons was called in question in a number of revisions before the revisional companyrt.
v. Union of India Ors.3 and Subhash Chander v. State Chandigarh Administration Ors.4 to companytend that the power of review having number been specifically provided, the same cannot be exercised by the Magistrate.
We have heard Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned senior companynsel and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior companynsel for the accused.
Thereafter the companytroversy took the centre stage when on 13.12.2011 the Director of the Prosecution companymunicated to the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry, stating that on a further perusal of the charge sheet in the aforesaid case it was found that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish the charges against the accused persons and the public prosecutor should be requested accordingly.
The said application came to be dismissed and the order of dismissal was called in question before this Court in a special leave petition with numbersuccess.
Hence, it is imperative to exposit facts after due filtration.
That apart, it was propounded that both the companyrts below had gravely erred in understanding the law laid down by the Apex Court, especially, Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar others.5 and that the learned Magistrate as well as the Special Court fell into error by number holding that application for withdrawal of application preferred under Section 321 Cr.
Presently to the facts.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
P.C. and directing the trial companyrt to decide the application for withdrawal afresh after taking into companysideration the documents filed by the informant along with the application filed under Section 91 Cr.
The said stalling has impelled the informant to prefer appeals by special leave.
Being of this view, the High Court directed as follows Consequentially, impugned orders are quashed with direction to the trial companyrt to decide within four weeks the second application of 16th December, 2011 Annexure P 13 i.e. the one for withdrawal of application under Section 321 of the Cr.
P.C. was under the dictates of the respondent.
In the meanwhile, let trial companyrt fix a date after the date fixed in these petitions.
P.C. has been erroneously relied upon by the companyrts below, particularly when right to pursue remedies before the criminal companyrts was preserved while deciding the writ petition.
Governor, the application was filed seeking withdrawal of the cases.
As the factual score would reveal, the matter was pending before the High Court of Delhi and it carried on for days and, as alleged, an effort was made to derail the proceedings by filing an application for recusal of the learned Judge who had substantially heard the matter.
The learned companynsel for the State supported the action taken by the Government and the order passed by the companyrts below.
Being of this view, he dismissed the revision applications vide order dated 15.11.2014.
The learned single Judge adverted to the various aspects of the law and came to hold that there was numberbasis for the petitioners to companytend that the decision of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to file an application under Section 321 Cr.
Reliance was placed on Patel Narshi Thakershi Ors.
The learned special Judge, Patiala House Courts while dealing with the revision petition, narrated the facts in entirety, numbered the companytentions advanced by the learned companynsel for the parties and opined that any party who has a right to file an application petition before a companyrt of a Magistrate, has an inherent right to withdraw the same and as a companyollary thereof the companyrt of a Magistrate will have the jurisdiction to allow the application seeking withdrawal of application for withdrawal from the prosecution.
P.C. in the light of the legal position as highlighted above and after taking it into companysideration, the document s filed by the petitioner along with application under Section 91of Cr.
Governor, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal of the earlier application for withdrawal of the prosecution.
P.C. After the remit, the learned Magistrate has passed the order declining permission to withdraw the application.
911 of 2003 along with the prayer for quashment of the FIR and an order came to be passed on 04.03.2003.
P.C. was wholly unjustified.
The appellant set the criminal law in motion by filing an FIR No.
So, dismissal of writ petition against grant of companysent by Lieutenant Governor to the withdrawal of application under Section 321 of Cr.
In the present case, the facts fresco a labyrinthine that has the potentiality to divert the mind.
The application for withdrawal clearly states that after thorough examination of case file and evidence on record, he found that there is sufficient evidence for proceeding against the accused persons and hence, the earlier application was to dispose of as number pressed.
Considering the submissions raised by the learned companynsel for the parties, the learned single Judge after referring to the authorities and the role of the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.
Being of this view, the High Court declined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The said order became the subject matter of intra court appeals.
The said order is also assailed before this Court.
Governor to the withdrawal of application under Section 321 of Cr.
On the basis of the order passed by the Lt.
On the basis of the directions given by the Lt.
P.C. After the High Court passed the order, the learned Magistrate took up the applications seeking withdrawal of the applications preferred earlier under Section 321 of Cr.
By the impugned order, the learned single Judge by placing reliance on certain authorities has held that decidedly it is the Public Prosecutor who has to take the decision and number the Government or the Lt.
On 04.03.2010 the High Court numbered that the learned companynsel for the petitioners therein did number want the matter to be disposed of on merits and sought liberty to raise all the points which have been raised before this Court in the trial Court at an appropriate stage at the stage of hearing arguments on charge.
The legal propriety of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was called in question before this Court in a Special Leave Petition C CC Nos.
v. Pradyuman Singh Ji Arjun Singh Ji2, R.R. Verma Ors.
P.C. can be withdrawn.
The Lt.
7447 7448 of 2014 which were dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2014.
3470 of 2012.
The application for withdrawal of the application preferred under Section 321 Cr.
It is also number in dispute that the petitioners have already preferred the remedy available to them in respect of the orders passed by the learned M.M. permitting the withdrawal of the applications under Section 321 Cr.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to another date for companysideration of charge.
12 of 2013 to 16 of 2013.
The said order had attained finality after the special leave petitions assailing the same stood dismissed.
548 of 2013 was preferred which was dismissed and assail in this companyrt did number yield any fruitful result.
P.C. wherein the impugned order dated 30.7.2015 has been passed.
