Case Note & Summary
The present application was filed by Nitin Ramesh Khairnar seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner, below Exhibit-37 in RCC No. 18 of 2003, and to grant permission for withdrawal of prosecution as prayed in the application below Exhibit-37. The applicant also sought to quash the entire proceeding of RCC No. 18/2003. The matter was pending since 2006. When the matter was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant and respondent No. 2. The learned APP for respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned order was just, proper, and reasonable, and referred to the benefit of the Government Circular mentioned in the case of Dagadu Shamrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1983(2)Bom.C.R. 424. The High Court, considering the seniority of the matter, proceeded to adjudicate the application on merits in the absence of the applicant and respondent No. 2. The court found the impugned order to be just, proper, and reasonable, and dismissed the application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Withdrawal of Prosecution - Section 321 CrPC - Government Circular - The applicant sought quashing of the trial court's order refusing permission to withdraw prosecution. The High Court, noting the absence of the applicant and respondent No. 2, and the seniority of the matter, proceeded to adjudicate on merits with the assistance of the APP. The court found the impugned order to be just, proper, and reasonable, and dismissed the application. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner, below Exhibit-37 in RCC No. 18 of 2003, refusing permission for withdrawal of prosecution, should be quashed and set aside.
Final Decision
The application is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court below Exhibit-37 is found to be just, proper and reasonable.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC
- Government Circular
- Discretion of trial court
- Non-prosecution of application
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 156
58 Criminal Application No. 2444 of 2006
Mr. B.R. Warma (for applicant, absent), Mr. S.N. Kendre (APP for respondent No. 1), Mr. A.S. Golekgaonkar (for respondent No. 2, absent)
The State of Maharashtra, The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Amalner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application seeking quashing of order refusing withdrawal of prosecution.
Remedy Sought
Quash and set aside the order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Amalner below Exhibit-37 in R.C.C. No. 18/2003 and grant permission for withdrawal of prosecution; also quash the entire proceeding of R.C.C. No. 18/2003.
Filing Reason
The applicant was aggrieved by the trial court's order refusing permission to withdraw prosecution.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order below Exhibit-37 on 20.7.2006 in RCC No. 18 of 2003.
Issues
Whether the impugned order refusing permission to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC is just and proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP for respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned order is just, proper and reasonable, and referred to the Government Circular in Dagadu Shamrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's order refusing permission to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC was just and proper, and the application was dismissed for non-prosecution and on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of seniority of the matter, I find it justifiable to proceed further to adjudicate the present application on merit in absence of applicant and respondent No. 2.
Learned APP for respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order passed by learned trial Court, below Exhibit-37 appears to be just, proper and reasonable.
Procedural History
The application was filed in 2006 challenging the order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Amalner below Exhibit-37 in RCC No. 18 of 2003. The matter was pending for 13 years. On the date of hearing, the applicant and respondent No. 2 were absent. The court proceeded to adjudicate on merits with the assistance of the APP.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 321
