Then the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution.
The appellants case is that he purchased an extent of 1.30 acres of land in 1987 in the name of his mother, Lacchu Nai.
After investigation, the police filed a final report alleging the companymission of offences under Section 341, 294 and 506 2 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant filed a companyplaint and on that basis a case was registered.
The appellant further companytended that the first respondent and Dinesh Chaudhary along with 20 25 persons came to the suit property and removed a shed companystructed there and caused damage to the boundary wall.
Appellants father filed a civil suit through the appellant, who was a power of attorney holder.
It was also alleged that in December 1992, the first respondent and his friend Dinesh Chaudhary assaulted the appellant and held a revolver against the chest of the appellant and threatened him.
An order of injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit and the same was companyfirmed by the Additional District Judge.
The first respondent and one Dinesh Chaudhary had settled rights over this property and they, according to the appellant, manipulated certain village records.
On the appellants side, five witnesses were examined and the case was posted for examination of the accused.
The appellant herein is the de facto companyplainant in the police charged case.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby he allowed the withdrawal of a case pending against the first respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Katni, Madhya Pradesh.
