In a criminal appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to challenge an order dated 26-07-2024, passed by the Special Judge, whereby an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav refused to interfere with the impugned order and held that the Trial Court’s approach was in consonance with the principles established by the Supreme Court.
The complainant (opposite party 2) paid Rs. 80,000/- to appellant 1 for arranging a visa and employment in Qatar for her husband. On 01-01-2019, a visa valid until 23-02-2019 was handed over to her. However, she alleged that the visa was unusable and that her money was not returned despite repeated demands. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the appellants demanding her money, they subjected her to caste-indicating abuses and criminal intimidation.
Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) exonerated two accused persons but filed a chargesheet against the appellants under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 3(1) (da) of the SC/ST Act.
Based on a communication dated 05-01-2024 from the State government, the public prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 of the CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution, on the grounds that the case did not warrant further continuation. The complainant raised objections to this, contending that the prosecution was allowed only after her application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was allowed.
The Trial Court rejected the said application and observed that the case involved serious allegations and that withdrawal was not in the public interest. It was also held that the public prosecutor’s application did not reflect an independent application of mind. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The appellants contended that since the Governor and the State government directed withdrawal, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application.
The Court found no merit in the appeal and stated that a mere expression of intention by the State government to withdraw the prosecution case does not bind the Court nor dilute the statutory requirement of independent scrutiny by both the public prosecutor and the Court, specifically in prosecutions under the SC/ST Act.
Reference was made to various cases, and it was held that the Trial Court’s approach in scrutinising prima facie evidence, considering the complainant’s rights, and noting the absence of independent reasoning by the public prosecutor, aligned with principles established by the Supreme Court.
The Court found no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the impugned order and refused to interfere in the rejection of the application under Section 321 of CrPC. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. However, since the Sessions trial had been pending since 2020, the Court asked the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings within six months.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) – Ankita Pandey
For Respondent(s) – G.A.
