HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) A case under Sections 409 & 420 IPC was got registered against Hari Kishan who worked as an Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon for tampering with and removing the public record, by City Magistrate, Gurgaon. The case was investigated and certain papers of Public record which were removed from a judicial file were alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was presented against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. While the case was fixed for consideration of charge Shri A. S. Rathee, Assistant Public. Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case against Hari Kishan Petitioner. It was alleged in the application that the Public Prosecutor was of the opinion that it will be in the public interest if the case was withdrawn. To satisfy himself about the bonafide of the Public Prosecutor, the Judicial Magistrate summoned the City Magistrate on whose complaint the case was registered and after taking his statement into consideration and also the other record the trial Court dismissed the application for withdrawal of the case vide order dated 13-3-1991 Annexure P/3. Against this order the State as well as Hari Kishan petitioner filed separate revision petitions which were consolidated and were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions fudge, Gurgaon, as per order dated 13-6-1991 Annexure P/1. Hari Kishan has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the orders Annexures P/1 and P/3 with a prayer that the application filed by the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. be accepted. The petitioner alleged that by passing of the impugned orders a grave miscarriage of justice had occurred. Under Section 321 Cr.P.C. the Court's jurisdiction was supervisory in nature and the petition for withdrawal, of the prosecution should not have been rejected.
(2.) I have heard Mr. P. S. Mann, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Gill, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent. The allegations against Hari Kishan petitioner are that while he worked as Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, he was incharge of the record-room and he removed certain papers from a judicial file. On the basis of these allegations the City Magistrate, Gurgaon got a case registered against the petitioner. When the case was fixed for hearing on charge, Public Prosecutor moved application Annexure P/4 for withdrawal of the prosecution case. This petition was resisted and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the same by recording a detailed order. That order was assailed by way of revision by Hari Kishan petitioner and the State but the revisions were also dismissed by Additional Sessions fudge, Gurgaon after going through all aspects of the case. A perusal of the application Annexure P/4 shows that the Public Prosecutor had not made out any ground which would show that the prosecution was sought to be withdrawn be cause inter-alia the prosecution may not be able to produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charge or that the prosecution did not appear to be well founded. Rather the trial Court examined the City Magistrate before passing any order an the application for withdrawal of the prosecution. There were no allegations that Hari Kishan was involved in the case falsely as, result of political or personal vendetta. In the present petition itself no ground was mentioned assailing the impugned orders nor, the learned counsel for the petitioner could point out any infirmity in the impugned orders. It is a settled principle that permission to withdraw the case cannot be granted to the prosecution only on the asking of the Public Prosecutor, but the Court must be satisfied on the material placed before it that the grant of permission would serve the administration of justice and that permission was not being sought with some ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law. The impugned orders are quite detailed and well reasoned and since no illegality has been pointed out it is not a fit case where inherent powers of the Court should be exercised. As a result I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.;