Criminal Application No.3160 of 2010

26th September, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: Shri NITIN TRIBHUWAN
Respondent Counsel: Shri D.S. BHARUKA

Cases Cited:
Sheo Nandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 877 [Para 11,14]
Provident Fund Inspector, Tirupati Vs. Madusadana Choudhary, (2000) 9 SCC 506 [Para 12,15]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard. Perused application and the record.

2. The applicant is son of original complainant Shri Ramrao Bhikaji Bodkhe, who had lodged a private complaint against the respondent/ accused being S.C.C. No.8834/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The complainant was a consenting party to the Sale Deed dated 27.12.2005 in respect of sale of land situated at Chikalthana, Aurangabad to the accused for consideration of Rs. 1,09,06,250/- to be paid to the vendor Bhaskarrao Kulkarni. For the consent given by the complainant to the sale deed, the accused was to pay to the complainant Rs.54,53,125/- and in discharge of that liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 7854034, dated 8.9.2006 of Rs.34,50,000/-, drawn on the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Khushalnagar Branch, Aurangabad. The said cheque was dishonoured, leading to the complaint in question.

3. The record reveals that, the complainant expired on 9.1.2008 and upon an application moved under Section 302 of the Criminal procedure Code (Exhibit 4), the applicant came to be substituted as legal representative of the complainant and was allowed to conduct the prosecution through his pleader. On 31.8.2009, the record further reveals that, purshis (Exhibit 42) was tendered by the applicant for withdrawal of the complaint.

4. Purshis (Exhibit 42) reads as under :

PURSHIS

The complainant withdraws his complaint since the matter is compromised out of the Court, subject to payment."

5. Purshis reveals endorsement of No Objection given by the Advocate representing the accused. It also reveals order of the Court, passed on the same day as under :

"Complainant is present, identified by Advocate B.R. Pande and considering the nature of the offence, purshis is filed and necessary order passed below Exh. 1."

6. Order below Exh. 1 reads as under :

"complainant present, he wants to withdraw the same. Purshis (Exh. 42) filed. Complaint is dismissed. Accordingly accused be discharged."

7. It is now submitted on behalf of the applicant that, during the pendency of the said complaint, the accused approached the complainant and assured the payment of the amount, and on the basis of the said assurance, purshis (Exhibit 42) was filed. However, the applicant further submits that, the respondent/ accused failed and neglected to make the payment as promised/ assured and, therefore, as per the legal advice received, the applicant/ complainant moved Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court along with the delay condonation application being Criminal Misc. Application No.17/2010 to condone the delay for effectively challenging the order of withdrawal of the said complaint, passed under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 31.8.2009. It is further submitted that, the said application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad on the ground that the impugned order amounts to an acquittal of the accused and needs to be challenged in an appeal preferred to this Court and not by way of the revision petition. This, the applicant pleads, prompted him to move the present application, seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated 31.8.2010. Certainly, an order under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 results in the acquittal of the accused and an appeal is the only remedy against such order. Purshis (Exhibit 42) reveals that withdrawal of the complaint was intended on payment of the cheque amount, which according to the applicant/ complainant, has not been paid by the respondent/ accused as per the affidavit dated 19.7.2011. This fact of non payment of the cheque amount has not been disputed by the respondent/ accused in the affidavit-in-reply dated 21.3.2011. The issues raised in the appeal as regards the withdrawal, therefore, deserve consideration. Leave is granted.

8. Appeal is admitted.

9. The matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal by consent of the parties.

10. Learned Advocate for the applicant/ complainant submitted that, purshis (Exhibit 42) placed on record, the intention of the complainant to withdraw the said case subject to payment of the amount of the cheque in question and the payment having been not made, there could not have been withdrawal of the said complaint and, therefore, withdrawal of the complaint with consequent acquittal of the respondent/ accused as recorded by the learned trial Court is bad in law. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharuka for the respondent/ accused submitted that, it is the contention of the respondent/ accused that an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid to the applicant/ complainant by payment order No.003352, drawn on the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, on 14.8.2009 to the applicant/ complainant as full and final settlement in the complaint S.C.C. No.8834/2006 and the petitioner, after acceptance of the payment order of Rs.20,00,000/-, had agreed to withdraw the complaint and had accordingly filed purshis (Exhibit 42); and now it is not open for the applicant/ complainant to get the case re-opened and enquiry instituted as to the settlement between the parties. Drawing parallel between the provision for withdrawal of the complaint incorporated in Section 257 of the Code and withdrawal from prosecution envisaged under Section 321 of the Code, learned Advocate for the respondent/ accused submitted that, the learned trial Court was not expected to pass a reasoned order on determination of any matter judicially.

11. To reinforce this submission, learned Advocate Mr. Bharuka for respondent/accused cited the case of Sheo Nandan Paswan (Sheo Nandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 877). According to him, the judicial function in exercise of the judicial discretion, both under sections 257 and 320 of the Code was same, and in exercise of such judicial discretion the Court has only to give its consent for withdrawal and not to determine any matter judicially, and as such it is not the function of this Court as well as of the trial Court to inquire into the fact of payment of the amount agreed to be paid in settlement out side the Court, and to determine the worth of withdrawal of the complaint ordered below the purshis Exhibit 42.

12. Mr. Tribuvan, learned Advocate for the applicant, countering the said submission cited the judgment in the case of Provident Fund Inspector's Case (Provident Fund Inspector, Tirupati vs. Madusadana Choudhary; (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 506) to advance the argument that the Magistrate, who is enjoined by law to get satisfied about the existence of prima facie case before taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused for appearance in Private Case, is also under obligation to record his satisfaction as to the request of the complainant to withdraw the complaint and further to record his satisfaction regarding existence of good grounds for withdrawal of the complaint, before the complaint is allowed to be withdrawn under Section 257 of the Code. According to him, no where in the order passed by the learned Magistrate below Exhibit 42 allowing withdrawal of the complaint, there is anything to suggest that he had recorded his satisfaction regarding the existence of good grounds for withdrawal of the said complaint. He pointed out from the order passed below Complaint Exhibit 1, with reference to withdrawal Purshis Exhibit 42, that the learned Magistrate had not recorded his satisfaction regarding the payment, which was condition precedent to the withdrawal made, following summary enquiry in that regard either with complainant or with the accused. However, it appears that the complaint was allowed to be withdrawn on the same date of the filing of Purshis Exhibit 42 without recording the requisite satisfaction. In view of this fact, the order endorsing withdrawal of the complaint, passed by learned Magistrate is in violation of Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as such, is required to be set aside.

13. Section 321 seemingly gives the effect of withdrawal of the complaint under section 257 of the Code inasmuch as the withdrawal under both the provisions brings the prosecution of the accused persons to an end and more particularly in case of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the Code, if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when no charge is required under the Code, the acquittal must follow alike in the case of withdrawal of the complaint. It is correct that in case of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the Code the Court has only to satisfy itself that executive function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised and as such, it is not necessary for the Court to assess the evidence to discover the merit of the case and, therefore, the Court function is merely to give its consent without any obligation to record reason before the consent is given. This can be seen from the following text of Section 321, "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: ............. 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.

14. In Sheo Nandan Paswan's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered kindred provisions in the Code, such as Section 320 as well as sections 203, 227, 245, 257 and 258 and made comparative assessment of the relevant sections in the following terms:

"There are some provisions in the Code, which relate to the manner in which the Courts have to exercise their jurisdiction in pending cases when applications are made for their withdrawal or when Court finds that there is no ground to proceed with the cases. Sections 203, 227, 245, 257 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are some such sections. Section 257 in Chapter 20, deals with trial of the Summons cases by a Magistrate and provides for the withdrawal of complaint. It reads as follows:

"257. Withdrawal of Complaint, if a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.

The wording of this section is also significantly different from Section 321. When a complainant wants to withdraw the complaint against the accused, the Magistrate can permit him to withdraw the same and acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn, only when he satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint. In other words, the complainant cannot withdraw his complaint as he pleases nor can the Magistrate permit him to do so unless the Magistrate satisfies himself that there are sufficient grounds to withdraw the complaint. This Section thus contemplates an order disclosing sufficient grounds to satisfy the Magistrate to accord permission to withdraw the complaint. The power conferred on a Magistrate under this section is in order to ensure that a complainant does not abuse the process of law by filing a false or vexatious complaint against another and withdrawing the complaint after adequately embarrassing or harassing the accused so as to escape the consequences of complaint or suit for malicious prosecution by the accused in the complaint."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon considering such mandate of Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in Provident Fund Inspector, Tirputi's case supra observed that,

"there cannot be any dispute that the complainant at any time before a final order is passed in a case can satisfy the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against accused and in such a case the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn. But there must be an existence of a request from the complainant indicating good grounds as to why complainant wishes to withdraw and the Magistrate after applying his mind to the said request must be satisfied that in fact good grounds exist for withdrawal of the complaint."

16. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate merely recorded the fact of complainant's presence and his request to withdraw the complaint in the order passed below complaint Exhibit 1 for dismissing the complaint following purshis Exhibit 42. However, there is nothing to indicate that he was satisfied about making of the payment [the payment of cheque amount referred to in the complaint] which was precondition to the withdrawal of the complaint. The learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction regarding good grounds for withdrawal of the complaint i.e. fulfillment of pre-condition for withdrawal upon summary enquiry either with complainant or with the accused or their counsel representing them in the said complaint. It was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to go into the details of settlement outside the Court, between the parties, but he could have certainly verified from either of the parties the fact of fulfillment or compliance of the precondition for withdrawal of the said complaint.

17. The impugned order, therefore, requires to be set aside. It shall, however, be open for the respondent-accused to take defence of satisfaction of the liability flowing from the cheque in question in the said complaint as a result of settlement outside the Court. The order dismissing the complaint passed below Complaint Exhibit 1 in SCC No.8834 of 2006 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class-7 Aurangabad for its disposal in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 21.10.2011. Record and Proceeding be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.

Ordered accordingly