Complainant must be heard before granting permission for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner filed an FIR against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 294, 323, 341, 506, and 34

During the trial, the prosecution filed an application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw the prosecution against the respondents

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Sagar, allowed the application on 30.11.2013, citing the non-serious nature of the offenses and the long pendency of the case

The petitioner’s criminal revision against this order was subsequently dismissed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge on 30.09.2014

The petitioner then moved the High Court, contending that as the informant/victim, he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice

1. Whether the learned JMFC was justified in allowing the application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. without affording the complainant/victim an opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the orders of the lower courts satisfied the requirements of due process and independent judicial scrutiny mandated for the withdrawal of prosecution.

Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs the withdrawal from prosecution

The Court must exercise independent judicial discretion—not acting mechanically—to ensure the withdrawal is in good faith and in the interest of public justice

The Court invoked the principles of natural justice and fair play, asserting that while a complainant may not have a strict statutory right to be heard in all cases, the Court must consider the objections of an aggrieved party when the outcome directly affects their rights and interests

The Court observed that while the JMFC allowed the withdrawal based on the nature of the offenses and the lapse of time, it failed to provide the petitioner—the victim—an opportunity to be heard

The Court reasoned that judicial application of mind under Section 321 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered complete if relevant inputs, such as the objections of the victim, are ignored in cases affecting personal liberty and public order

It held that the failure to put the informant on notice resulted in a procedural infirmity that the Revisional Court also failed to address

Consequently, the Court found that the omission of a hearing amounted to a violation of natural justice, rendering the lower courts' orders vitiated by procedural irregularity

The matter was remanded to the JMFC, Sagar, for fresh consideration of the Section 321 Cr.P.C. application. The Court directed the trial court to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording the complainant/informant an opportunity of hearing, without being influenced by any observations on the merits of the case