ORDER
I.S. Tiwana, J.
1. This is a prayer under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the order of the trial Magistrate and also the revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, passed on an application made by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321, Cr. P.C. The relevant contents of this application are:
It is submitted as under:
1. That the above noted case is fixed for 21-1-86 for the evidence of prosecution.
2. That in the above noted case, keeping in view public tranquillity & communal harmony at large, Govt. has decided to withdraw this case.
3. That it is therefore, prayed that prosecution may be allowed to withdraw from the prosecution keeping in view the interest at large.
Sd/- Assistant District Attorney,
Hoshiarpur.
2. In the light of this application, the Magistrate though referred to some judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court indicating as to what have to be the guiding factors in such matters, yet without analysing the same vis-a-vis the facts of the case in hand, concluded the matter with the following observations:
…I am fully satisfied that the request for withdrawal from prosecution of the case is fully justified. The prayer of the A.P.P. is, therefore, granted and the accused is acquitted. File be consigned to the record room.
3. By now it has repeatedly been laid down by the Final Court that in such matters the statutory responsibility for deciding upon withdrawal of cases squarely vests in the Public Prosecutor and it is non-negotiable and cannot be bartered away in favour of those who may be above him on the administrative side. The Criminal Procedure Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide himself with reference to the Criminal Procedure Code only. So guided, the consideration which must weigh with him is whether the broader cause of public justice will be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuation of the prosecution. If some policy consideration bearing on the administration of justice justifies withdrawal the Court may accord permission. The interest of public justice being essentially of paramount consideration has to weigh with the Court. (See Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar 1977 SCC (Cri) 633 : 1977 Cri LJ 1935.
4. As already pointed out the learned Magistrate, after noticing certain judgments, has not said a word as to what was the policy decision taken by the Government, how the facts of this case were covered by that policy and how the object of the said policy was going to be achieved by the withdrawal of the present case. Similarly the Public Prosecutor also did not care to apprise himself of his responsibilities under the Code of Criminal Procedure. What appears to have weighed with him for the withdrawal of the case was a Government decision and not his own. I am, therefore, satisfied that the entire process of withdrawal has been gone through mechanically and without taking into consideration the relevant considerations.
5. At one stage, it was sought to be argued by Mr. Chattar Singh, the learned Counsel for the accused that the petitioner having failed in the revisional Court, the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is not maintainable and this Court should be reluctant to exercise the inherent powers.
6. In the light of conclusion recorded above, I find that it is one of the fittest cases wherein inherent powers should be invoked to set right the course of justice. I, therefore, allow this petition and while setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 3-2-1986 and of the Revisional Court dt. 3-9-1986, dismiss the application of the Public Prosecutor dt. 21-1-1986 filed under Section 321, Cr. P.C.
7. The net result is that the case would go back to the trial Court and the said Court would conclude the same in accordance with law. The respondents through their counsel are directed to appear before that Court on 20-3-1987.