Bhaiyaram Thakur vs Anurudh @ Nathusingh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 07-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28596 1 MCRC-1029-2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI th ON THE 7 OF APRIL, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1029 of 2015 BHAIYARAM THAKUR Versus ANURUDH @ NATHUSINGH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the applicants. Shri Manoj Kushwaha - PL for the respondent-State. Shri Purn Jeet Gupta - Advocate for respondent no.2. ORDER The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No.232/2014 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Sagar, allowing the application filed under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for withdrawal of prosecution against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged by the present petitioner against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 10-04-2026 18:14:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28596 2 MCRC-1029-2015 Code. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the matter was pending trial before the learned JMFC, Sagar. During the pendency of trial, on 30.11.2013, an application was filed by the prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned JMFC allowed the said application. The petitioner, being the informant/complainant in the case, challenged the said order by filing a criminal revision, which too came to be dismissed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the courts below have committed a grave error in law in allowing withdrawal of prosecution on the premise that the offences were not of serious nature and that continuation of proceedings would not affect society. It is further contended that the petitioner, being the original complainant, was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before allowing the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that it is a settled principle that while considering an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., the Court must apply its independent mind to ascertain whether the withdrawal is in the interest of justice and public interest, and sufficient reasons must be recorded. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and supported the orders passed by the courts below, contending that no illegality or perversity has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 10-04-2026 18:14:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28596 3 MCRC-1029-2015 committed warranting interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The core question arising for consideration is whether the learned JMFC was justified in allowing the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/complainant, and whether such an order satisfies the requirement of due process and judicial scrutiny as mandated under law. 7. It is well settled that though an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. is moved by the Public Prosecutor, the Court is not to act mechanically and must exercise its independent judicial discretion by applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court must be satisfied that withdrawal from prosecution is in good faith, in the interest of public justice, and not actuated by extraneous considerations. 8. In the present case, a perusal of the order passed by the learned JMFC reveals that the application has been allowed primarily on the ground that the offences are not of grave nature and that continuation of prosecution would not cause harm to society, and further that the matter has been pending for a long time. 9. However, it is evident that the petitioner, who is the first informant and the victim of the alleged offences, was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. was decided. Though it is correct that the complainant does not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 10-04-2026 18:14:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28596 4 MCRC-1029-2015 have a statutory right to be heard in every circumstance, the principles of fair play and natural justice require that where the outcome of such an application directly affects the rights and interests of the complainant/victim, he should at least be put to notice and his objections ought to be considered by the Court before arriving at a conclusion. 10. The failure to hear the petitioner has resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to place his objections on record, which could have had a bearing on the judicial satisfaction to be recorded under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. The requirement of judicial application of mind cannot be fulfilled in isolation from relevant inputs, including objections of the aggrieved party, particularly when allegations pertain to offences affecting personal liberty and public order. The Revisional Court has also affirmed the order of the learned JMFC without addressing this procedural infirmity. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned JMFC failed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C.; Such omission amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the orders passed by both the courts below are therefore vitiated on account of procedural irregularity; and the matter requires reconsideration afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering his objections, if any. 12. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 10-04-2026 18:14:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28596 5 MCRC-1029-2015 JMFC, Sagar as well as the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned JMFC, Sagar for fresh consideration of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C to decide the application afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant/informant. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., and the learned trial Court shall decide the matter independently without being influenced by any observations made herein. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE mn Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 10-04-2026 18:14:25</div>