The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed the Uttar Pradesh government’s application to withdraw a criminal case against Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh, Uttar Pradesh Minister of the State for Health.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The revision has been filed by the State under Section 397/401 CrPC against the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Special Judge/MP/MLA/ VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli on an application filed by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution in Criminal Case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 436, 397, 395, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 2(3) UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Mohanganj, District Raebareli.
The Court noted that the trial court has rejected the said application on the ground that the charge has not yet been framed in as much as the accused has not remained present before the court. The case has remained pending since 2007. Application for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC was moved in 2012/2019.
However, the Public Prosecutor in application had not stated any fact on the basis of which it would be evident that withdrawal from prosecution would be in larger public interest. The Public Prosecutor has only mentioned in the application that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to support the charge. The prosecution case is weak and, therefore, in public interest, permission be granted for withdrawal from prosecution.
It has been observed that on the basis of the case, provisions of Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act were invoked against the accused Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh. District Magistrate gives permission for invoking the provisions under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act only where there is sufficient evidence against the accused for his prosecution. The Magistrate therefore held that the stand of the prosecution itself is contradictory.
It has been further observed that the Public Prosecutor has not applied his judicial mind properly at the time of filing of the application. Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh was a sitting MLA and State Minister in the Cabinet of the State Government. It has been said that despite him holding a constitutional post, he along with 20-25 people sprinkled petrol on the house of the complainant and set it on fire. Withdrawal from prosecution in such a case would not be in public interest, and if such a case is allowed to be withdrawn, a wrong message would be sent in public and it would not be in the public interest.
The facts of the case are that the election for UP Legislative Assembly 2007, respondent No 2- Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh, who was sitting MLA from Tiloi Constituency in Raebareli was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and Dinesh Pratap Singh was the candidate of Bahujan Samajwadi Party in the said State Assembly Election. The complainant (respondent No14) was a supporter of Dinesh Pratap Singh, candidate of Bahujan Samajwadi Party. He was earlier a supporter of Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh.
During course of said election for UP Legislative Assembly Election 2007, an FIR came to be registered on a complaint of respondent No14 alleging that on 03.05.2007 at around 10:00 P.M, when the complainant was sitting outside his house at that time, respondent No 2 along with his 20-25 supporters came from 4 vehicles. They started abusing him. Accused Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh exhorted others to kill the complainant as he had opposed him in the election. He also exhorted his supporters to take out petrol from the vehicles and set the house of the complainant on fire. On this exhortation, Ashok Singh, Krishna Kumar Soni, Manoj Singh, Narsingh, Kunj Bihari Singh, Lallan Singh and 8-9 persons, who came along with him took out petrol from their vehicles and ran towards the complainant.
The complainant went inside his house and closed the door from inside. Persons who came with Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh tried to break open the house, and when they were not successful, they sprinkled petrol and set the door of the house on fire. It was said that that complainant could flee from the place from another door. On raising alarm by him, some villagers came running towards the house of the complainant but the accused terrorized them by firing and threatened them that if anyone come near the house of the complainant, he would lose his life. After an hour, the accused went back to their vehicles.
It was alleged that the wife and children of the complainant were badly assaulted. It was further alleged that the accused were throwing children in the fire. However, their mother could save them. It was further alleged that the accused had also taken away jewellery, which was kept for marriage of the daughter of the complainant, and his household items were set on fire. The accused had destroyed the tractor of the complainant and they had set the tractor trolley on fire.
The Court further noted that,
The Public Prosecutor had filed an application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal from prosecution after the State Government granted permission for withdrawal from prosecution.
In the said application, it was said that Dinesh Pratap Singh, who was a rival candidate in the State Assembly Election 2007, was present at the police station when the FIR came to be registered on 04.05.2007. It was further said that a medical examination of the son of the complainant was conducted on 04.05.2007 at 12:50 Hours. However, no medical examination of any other person was conducted. It was further said that the investigating officer recorded the statements of the family members of the complainant, and there were glaring contradictions in the statements of the family members and other independent witnesses.
The application further mentions that on considering the evidence available in the case diary, the case against the accused appears to be very weak. Complainant’s son Sajjan Singh did not mention how he received three injuries. There is no date mentioned in the approval allegedly granted by District Magistrate for invoking provisions of the Gangsters Act against the accused and, therefore, it was prayed that the application be allowed and it should be withdrawn from prosecution.
Notice was issued to the complainant, respondent No14. Initially, he opposed the application for withdrawal but on 06.03.2020, he moved another application and said that he did not press his objection against withdrawal from prosecution and his objection be rejected and he would have no objection, if application under Section 321 CrPC was allowed.
In the case, from reading of the application, it appears that the Public Prosecutor had filed the application under Section 321 CrPC in good faith after careful consideration of the material available on record. The FIR got registered because of political rivalry. The complainant himself has submitted an application before the trial Court that he would have no objection, if the application is allowed, and his earlier objection on application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal from prosecution be ignored, the Court observed.
“The Court is required to consider whether withdrawal from prosecution would further the cause of justice or not and whether it would be in public interest to allow the withdrawal from prosecution. When the complainant himself is not supporting the prosecution case, the Court is of the view that there is no chance of conviction of the accused in the case. The case has remained pending since 2007 and continuance of trial would be nothing but a futile exercise and Court’s precious time would get wasted for futile exercise, if the application for withdrawal from prosecution is not allowed,” the Court said.
“Considering the stand of the complainant, the Court is of the view that withdrawal from prosecution would be in the interest of justice. It would be appropriate to allow the application for withdrawal from prosecution. In view thereof, the Court finds that the view taken by the Special Judge does not appear to be the correct view,” the Court further observed while allowing the revision.
“The order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Special Judge/MP/MLA/ VI- Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli is hereby set aside. The application for withdrawal from prosecution is also allowed,” the Court ordered.