Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108277 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 121) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 542 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Poonam Shivhare And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Srivastava Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-Hamirpur upon application moved by the A.D.G.C. (Criminal) in Case No. 878 of 2012 (arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2012), State vs. Govind and others, under Section 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kurara, District-Hamirpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant case an application was moved by the public prosecutor for withdrawing the prosecution of the applicants as per the directions issued by the State Government. However, vide impugned order dated 18.12.2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur has rejected the said application holding that the said application has been filed by the Public Prosecutor without considering the objections of the opposite party no. 2 and without applying its own discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case and the said application was filed merely on the directions of the State Government. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the said application has been rejected by the trial court on the technical grounds and the sufferers of the technical mistakes on the part of the Public Prosecutor are the applicants herein. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 18.12.2015. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that while recommending the withdrawal of the prosecution neither the Public Prosecutor nor the State Government has considered the objections of the opposite party no. 2 and the application for withdrawal from prosecution was moved by the Public Prosecutor on the directions of the State Government. Whereas as per the provisions under Section 321 Cr.P.C., it is for the Public Prosecutor to take an independent decision with regard to withdrawal of the prosecution after considering the objections of the opposite party no. 2, the informant herein. Thereupon if he makes out an opinion in favour of the withdrawal then the permission of the State Government is required before filing the said application before the trial court. However, the procedure in the instant case has been followed in the reverse order and at the directions of the State Government, the application was moved for withdrawal of the prosecution that too without considering the objections of opposite party no. 2. Therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. In view thereof, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned A.G.A. also admits that in the instant case the application for withdrawal of prosecution was moved at the directions of the State Government. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the records of the case. 7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of provisions of Section 321 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- "321. Withdrawal from prosecution.- The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,- (a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences; (b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences: Provided that where such offence – (i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or (ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or (iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or (iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution. UTTAR PRADESH.- In Section 321 after the words "in charge of a case may" insert the words "on the written permission of the State Government to that effect (which shall be filed in Court)". - [U.P. Act No. 18 of 1991, Section 3 w.e.f. 16.2.1991]." 8. From the aforesaid provision, it is evident that it is the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, in charge of the case, who can move an application for withdrawal of the prosecution. As per the UP Amendment, the written permission of the State Government is necessary before such application is moved by the Public Prosecutor. It has been categorically held by the Apex Court in S.K. Shukla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; AIR 2006 SC 413 that in withdrawal from prosecution, Public Prosecutor cannot act on the dictates of the State Government. He has to act objectively as he is also an officer of the Court. The similar view has been taken in Rahul Agarwal vs. Rakesh Jain & Another; AIR 2005 SC 910. 9. In the instant case the prosecution was initiated on the complaint of the opposite party no. 2 and by moving an application for withdrawal of prosecution, at no point of time the objections of opposite party no. 2 has been taken note of by the Public Prosecution nor the same were considered. In this view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order. 10. It is further apparent from the record that earlier also the applicants had moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the charge sheet, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 7.9.2012. 11. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. 12. The instant case is pending since 2012 and the trial is yet to start. In view thereof, it is directed that the trial court shall proceed in the matter as expeditiously as possible. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad