# TEKCHAND & ANR v. TEKCHAND, SUPDT. OF POLICE & ORS

- **Citation:** [1987] 1 S.C.R. 376
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-11-28
- **Bench:** Ranganath Misra, G.L. Oza
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tekchand-anr-v-tekchand-supdt-of-police-ors-9413
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Withdrawal of Prosecution-Cha,1ces of conviction farfetched and
bleak and evidence not forthcoming as per the report under section 173(8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code-Whether the grant of permission for nolles
prosequi under section 321 of the Code i• order.
In respect of certain incident dated 2.4.1974, the First Infonnation
Report has been registered suo motu by tile Police after 31;\ years, on the basis
of the report of Commission of Inquiry. The victims of the injuries were also
accused of criminal offences said to have taken place at the same point of time
who were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani on 2.4.74 and
D
were also medically examined. They did not file any private complaint, though
released on bail. Based on the report of the Investigating Agency under section
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor filed an
application under section 321 of the Cmle for withdrawal of the prosecution
case which was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. The High
Court also affirmed the said order. Hence the Special Leave Petitions.
E
Dismissing the petitions, the Coor~
HELD: In the facts and circumsta >ces of the case, it is in public interest
that the Prosecution should not proceed with the prosecution. A report under
section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure hy the investigating agency
F
indicated that adequate evidence has not been forthcoming to support the
prosecution which was commenced suo motu on the basis of a report of the
Commission of ·Inquiry on whose finding no conviction can lie. The victims
. ).
themselves who were the accused of crindnal offences said to have taken place
at the same point of time did not complai > before the Magistrate concerned and
~-
did not file private complaints. The plea that one of the accused persons was the
G
son of a political figure wielding influtmce did not deter the Magistrate in
ordering release the victims in the earlier case. Further chances of
conviction are too far-fetched and bl.,ak. [378E, BJ
'

## Text

A
B
c
TEKCHAND & ANR.
v.
TEKCHAND, SUPDT. OF POLICE & ORS.
NOVEMBER 28, 1986
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
Withdrawal of Prosecution-Cha,1ces of conviction farfetched and
bleak and evidence not forthcoming as per the report under section 173(8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code-Whether the grant of permission for nolles
prosequi under section 321 of the Code i• order.
In respect of certain incident dated 2.4.1974, the First Infonnation
Report has been registered suo motu by tile Police after 31;\ years, on the basis
of the report of Commission of Inquiry. The victims of the injuries were also
accused of criminal offences said to have taken place at the same point of time
who were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani on 2.4.74 and
D
were also medically examined. They did not file any private complaint, though
released on bail. Based on the report of the Investigating Agency under section
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor filed an
application under section 321 of the Cmle for withdrawal of the prosecution
case which was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. The High
Court also affirmed the said order. Hence the Special Leave Petitions.
E
Dismissing the petitions, the Coor~
HELD: In the facts and circumsta >ces of the case, it is in public interest
that the Prosecution should not proceed with the prosecution. A report under
section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure hy the investigating agency
F
indicated that adequate evidence has not been forthcoming to support the
prosecution which was commenced suo motu on the basis of a report of the
Commission of ·Inquiry on whose finding no conviction can lie. The victims
. ).
themselves who were the accused of crindnal offences said to have taken place
at the same point of time did not complai > before the Magistrate concerned and
~-
did not file private complaints. The plea that one of the accused persons was the
G
son of a political figure wielding influtmce did not deter the Magistrate in
ordering release the victims in the earlier case. Further chances of
conviction are too far-fetched and bl.,ak. [378E, BJ
'
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Crl). Nos. 1682 And 3120 of. 1983.
H
376
TEKCHAND v. TEKCHAN?, SUPDT. OF POLICE
377
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1983 of the Punjab and
A
Haryana High Court in Crl. Revision No. 1427 & 1428 of 1980.
Govind Mukhoty and Sarva Mitter for the Petitioners.
M.C. Bhandari, Harbans Lal, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, C.V. Subba Rao, S.K.
Bisaria, Ravindra Bana and N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondents.
B
The Order of the Court was delivered by
These two special leave petitions and a writ petition were filed for a
common purpose~the writ petition questioning the vi res of section 321 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and these two special leave petitions
questioning the correctness of the order of the (High Court by which it affirmed
C
the order of the Chief Judici<1l Magistrate of Bhiwani, according permission
under the same section 321 for withdtawal of a prosecution .against the
respondents excepting the State of Haryana. We have already dismissed ihe
writ petition and now proceed to dispose of the special leave applications. As
lengthy arguments were advanced we propose to make a brief but speaking
D
order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are inclined fo think that
the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was perhaps not appropriate
in law. The High Court did go into the question afresh in its revisional
jurisdiction but there could also be some a.rguments possible with reference to
what the High Court has said. We are, however, definitely of the view that no
useful purpose will be served in setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court and in directing the prosecution to
proceed as there is, in our opinion, no chance of ultimate conviction. Allowing
such a prosecution to proceed will only be harassment· to the parties and
wastage of public time. Now we briefly indicate so~e features to justify this
conclusion of ours. 1
· The incident is dated 2.4.1974. The First Information Report has been
registered suo motu by the police in November 1977-after a gap of more than
3Y, years. The victims of the injuries were also accused of criminal offences said
E
F
. to have taken place at the same point of time and were produced before the G
Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani on 3.4.1974. The Judicial Magistrate enlarged
them on bail and finding injuries on their persons directed them to be medically
examined. There is no material before us to show that the victims had
complained to the learned Judicial Magistrate that the present accused persons
were the authors of the i".ljuries on them. We gave an opportunity to the
petitioners to produce such material but with no result. ·For the first time,. H
378
SUPREME COURT :lEPORTS
[1987] I S.C.R.
A
witnesses to the occurrence were examim d towards the end of 1977 and
)(
B
c
D
E
F
beginning of 1978 during investigation.
The learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that one of the accused
persons happens to be the son of a political figure wielding influence. We find
that this fact did not deter the Judicial Magistrate in ordering release of the
victims who had been produeed before hiI]l as accused persons. The learned
Magistrate also made an order for their medical examinatjon and that was
carried out. There is no justification as to wh) a private complaint was not made
contemporaneously and the matter had to wait for 3 Y, years for investigation
on the basis of the First Information Repo1t.
The learned counsel also pointed out that Emergency had intervened and
during that period a situation prevailed where the victims could not open their
mouths. A period of more than 14 months intervened between the occurrence
and the promulgation of emergency.
A Commission was set up after the emergency had ended and holding a
fresh elections, a different political party had come to power. Following the
report of the Commission this prosecution hc.d been launched. The petitioners'
learned counsel did not dispute the position that the finding of the Commission
is not evidenced and no conviction can lie r•n the conclusion either. In these
circumstances, chances of conviction are too far-fetched and bleak. We do not
think it is in public interest that the prosecution should proceed. We may add
that in a report under section 173(8) of the Code, the investigating agency has
also indicated that adequate evidence has not been forthcoming to support the
prosecution. It is thus not necessary to examille the legal aspect canvassed in the
special leave petitions and argued .during hearing. Both the petitions are
. dismissed.
S.R.
Petitions dismissed.