DINESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the order dt. 08.11.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 2 (South) Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Sec. 321 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for withdrawing the Criminal Case No. 53/2012 pending before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rajasthan Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1970 had been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dt. 26.6.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Udaipur whereby two revision petitions one by the petitioner and another by the State have been dismissed and the order dt. 8.11.2013 passed by the trial Court has been affirmed. Petitioner is serving as Doctor in the Medical Department of State of Rajasthan. On 28.12.2011, the petitioner was posted at Public Health Centre Itali, Block Mawali, District Udaipur. It is noticed that a call was given by Doctors to observe strike, however, the State Government passed an order dt. 20.12.2011 and declared the strike of Doctors as illegal while invoking the provisions of Rajasthan Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1970. A complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that that on 28.12.2011 when the SHO, Police Station Kurawad, District Udaipur visited the Public Health Centre, Itali, he found that the petitioner was instigating other employees to observe strike. An FIR No. 150/11 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kurawad, District Udaipur for the offence punishable U/Sec.3/4 of RESMA and after investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable u/Sec.3, 4 & 5 of RESMA. When the petitioner was facing trial before the trial Court for aforesaid offences, the Home Department of the State issued an order dt. 13.8.2012 whereby it is decided that the cases against tire Doctors, who remained on strike in December 2012, be withdrawn. Pursuant to that, the Assistant Public Prosecutor has moved an application under Sec. 321 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, however, the said application was rejected by the trial Court on 15.1.2013 against which a revision petition was filed before the revisional Court, however, the same was also dismissed. Thereafter another application under Sec. 321 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor with a prayer for granting permission to withdraw the case against the petitioner, however, the said application was also rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dt. 8.11.2013 against which the revision petition preferred on behalf of the State as well as the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dt. 26.6.2013, hence, this criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, in fact, the State Government has decided to withdraw the criminal cases against as many as 8 Doctors, who were involved in strike in December 2011 and out of which the criminal cases against all the Doctors, except the petitioner, have been ordered to be withdrawn either by competent criminal Court or by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 746/2014 (Prathvi Raj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 2.7.2015 whereby this Court while allowing the criminal misc. petition has ordered for withdrawal of criminal cases against the Doctor Prathvi Raj and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record an application under Sec. 321 Cr.P.C. filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the trial Court and has submitted that sufficient grounds and reasons have been furnished by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to justify the withdrawal of the criminal case against the petitioner, however, the trial Court had wrongly observed that the Assistant Public Prosecutor had not given any reason for withdrawal of the criminal case against the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below may be quashed and the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be withdrawn.