Can a public prosecutor who is not in charge of a private criminal complaint withdraw an accused in a case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a married complainant, who works as a clerk in a municipal office, files a private criminal complaint after being allegedly assaulted and threatened with a firearm by a senior employee of the same office while leaving a public park; the complaint charges the senior employee and a third person with offences of attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and assault, and it is lodged before the magistrate of a town in the state.

The investigating agency, a district police unit, records the FIR and begins an inquiry. The senior employee, who is also a member of a local cooperative society, is named as the primary accused, while the third person, a relative of the senior employee, is named as an alleged conspirator. The complainant, exercising the right granted by law to prosecute a private complaint, personally takes charge of the prosecution and appears before the magistrate as the complainant‑prosecutor. Several weeks into the trial, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who holds the statutory position of Public Prosecutor for the district but is not the officer conducting this particular prosecution, files an application under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the magistrate’s permission to withdraw the prosecution of the third person on the ground that the evidence against him is weak and that the complainant has expressed a willingness to settle the matter.

The magistrate, persuaded by the Deputy Superintendent’s representation, grants the withdrawal and orders that the third person be released from further proceedings. The Sessions Court, on appeal by the complainant, affirms the magistrate’s order, holding that any Public Prosecutor may invoke section 494 irrespective of whether he is “in charge” of the case, because the prosecution is a matter of the State. The complainant, dissatisfied with the outcome, raises a fundamental legal problem: does a Public Prosecutor who is not actually conducting the prosecution have the locus standi to seek withdrawal of an accused under section 494 when the prosecution has been initiated by a private complaint and is being pursued by the complainant himself?

This problem cannot be resolved merely by presenting a factual defence to the allegations against the third person, because the core issue is procedural – the authority of the Public Prosecutor to intervene in a proceeding that he does not control. The complainant’s ordinary defence does not address the statutory limitation embedded in the language of section 494, which presupposes that the officer seeking withdrawal is already “in charge” of the prosecution. Consequently, the appropriate procedural remedy is to challenge the magistrate’s and Sessions Court’s orders through a revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking the power conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure to correct errors of law made by subordinate courts.

A revision petition is the correct avenue because it is the statutory mechanism that allows a higher court to examine whether a subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction incorrectly or has erred in interpreting a statutory provision. The petition would seek a declaration that the Deputy Superintendent, although a Public Prosecutor, lacked the requisite “in‑charge” status to invoke section 494, and would ask the High Court to quash the withdrawal order, thereby restoring the complainant’s right to continue prosecuting the third person. The relief sought would also include an order directing the magistrate to proceed with the trial as originally instituted by the private complaint, ensuring that the accused cannot escape liability through a procedural technicality.

In practice, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would draft the revision petition, carefully citing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisprudence on the scope of a Public Prosecutor’s powers, and the principle that a private complaint confers a distinct prosecutorial role on the complainant. The petition would also reference earlier decisions of the Supreme Court that have clarified the two‑fold test for the validity of a withdrawal application: the officer must be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of section 492 and must be “in charge” of the specific prosecution. By presenting these authorities, the petition aims to demonstrate that the lower courts misapplied the law.

For the complainant, engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court or lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can provide the necessary expertise to navigate the procedural intricacies of a revision. These practitioners understand how to structure the relief, frame the questions of law for the High Court’s consideration, and anticipate any counter‑arguments from the Public Prosecutor’s side. The ultimate objective of the revision is not merely to overturn a single order but to reaffirm the statutory limitation on a Public Prosecutor’s power to withdraw a prosecution when he is not the officer actually conducting the case, thereby preserving the integrity of private complaints as a distinct avenue of criminal justice.

Question: Does a Public Prosecutor who is not the officer actually conducting the private criminal complaint possess the legal authority to invoke the withdrawal provision and seek the release of an accused?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the complainant, a municipal clerk, lodged a private criminal complaint after being allegedly assaulted and threatened with a firearm by a senior employee and a third person. The complainant elected to prosecute the case personally, appearing before the magistrate as complainant‑prosecutor. Several weeks into the trial, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who holds the statutory position of Public Prosecutor for the district but was not the officer handling this particular private prosecution, filed an application under the withdrawal provision seeking the magistrate’s permission to withdraw the third person from the proceedings. The core legal problem is whether the statutory language granting a Public Prosecutor the power to withdraw a prosecution is limited to the officer who is “in charge” of that specific case. Jurisprudence interprets the phrase “in charge” as requiring the Prosecutor to be the one actually conducting the prosecution, because the power to withdraw is premised on an existing prosecutorial relationship with the accused. In the present scenario, the Deputy Superintendent was not the officer directing the private complaint; the complainant himself was. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor’s locus standi is doubtful. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would examine the statutory scheme, emphasizing that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor under the relevant provision does not automatically confer a blanket right to intervene in every criminal proceeding within the jurisdiction. The court would likely apply a two‑fold test: the officer must be a Public Prosecutor and must be “in charge” of the specific prosecution. Since the second limb is not satisfied, the withdrawal application would be ultra vires. The procedural consequence is that the magistrate’s order granting withdrawal could be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, preserving the complainant’s right to continue the prosecution. Practically, this means the accused would remain on the trial docket, and the prosecution would proceed under the complainant’s direction, preventing a procedural loophole that could otherwise allow the State to unilaterally dismiss charges without the complainant’s consent.

Question: What legal effect does the magistrate’s order granting withdrawal have on the complainant’s statutory right to pursue the prosecution of the third person?

Answer: The magistrate’s order, issued after considering the Deputy Superintendent’s application under the withdrawal provision, released the third person from further proceedings. This order directly impacts the complainant’s statutory entitlement to prosecute a private complaint, a right expressly conferred by law to enable individuals to seek criminal redress when the State does not initiate action. By permitting withdrawal, the magistrate effectively curtailed the complainant’s ability to continue the case, substituting the State’s discretion for the complainant’s autonomous decision. The legal effect is two‑fold: first, it creates a procedural bar to the complainant’s further participation, as the accused is no longer before the court; second, it raises a question of jurisdiction, because the magistrate’s power to grant withdrawal is limited to applications made by a Public Prosecutor who is “in charge” of the prosecution. Since the complainant, not the Public Prosecutor, was conducting the case, the magistrate may have exceeded its authority. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the withdrawal order is void ab initio if the procedural pre‑condition of a “in‑charge” Public Prosecutor is absent. The practical implication for the complainant is that the withdrawal order, if upheld, would extinguish the criminal liability of the third person, depriving the complainant of any further remedy in the criminal forum. Conversely, if the order is set aside, the complainant’s right to prosecute would be restored, and the trial would resume, allowing the evidence against the third person to be examined. For the accused, the order provides immediate relief; however, its validity hinges on the correct application of procedural law, and any error could be corrected on appeal, reinstating the prosecution and exposing the accused to potential conviction.

Question: Which procedural remedy is available to the complainant to contest the withdrawal order, and why is that remedy appropriate under the hierarchy of courts?

Answer: The complainant, dissatisfied with the magistrate’s and the Sessions Court’s affirmation of the withdrawal, may file a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A revision petition is the statutory mechanism that enables a higher court to examine whether a subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction incorrectly or erred in interpreting a legal provision. In this case, the legal error concerns the magistrate’s jurisdiction to grant withdrawal when the application was made by a Public Prosecutor who was not “in charge” of the private prosecution. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can scrutinize the lower courts’ application of the withdrawal provision and determine whether the procedural pre‑condition was satisfied. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would draft the petition, setting out the factual background, the statutory framework, and the two‑fold test for the validity of a withdrawal application. The petition would seek a declaration that the Deputy Superintendent lacked locus standi, an order quashing the withdrawal, and directions to the magistrate to proceed with the trial as originally instituted by the private complaint. The practical implication of a successful revision is that the accused would be reinstated on the trial docket, and the complainant would regain the statutory right to prosecute. For the prosecution, the High Court’s intervention would reaffirm the limited scope of the Public Prosecutor’s powers, preserving the integrity of private complaints. The accused, on the other hand, would face the prospect of continued criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards. The High Court’s decision would also provide binding precedent for future cases involving the interplay between private prosecutions and the withdrawal provision, guiding lower courts and public prosecutors alike.

Question: What are the potential outcomes for the accused if the High Court sets aside the withdrawal order versus if it upholds the order, and how might each outcome affect the broader administration of criminal justice?

Answer: If the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside the withdrawal order, the immediate consequence is that the third person will be re‑joined to the trial, and the complainant‑prosecutor will resume presenting evidence. This outcome reinforces the principle that a private complaint confers an independent prosecutorial right that cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by a Public Prosecutor lacking “in‑charge” status. The accused will then be subject to the full rigour of criminal procedure, including examination of witnesses, cross‑examination, and potential conviction or acquittal based on the merits. The broader impact on criminal justice is the affirmation of procedural safeguards that prevent the State from circumventing private prosecutions, thereby upholding victims’ rights and ensuring that serious allegations are adjudicated on substantive evidence rather than procedural technicalities. Conversely, if the High Court upholds the withdrawal order, the accused will enjoy immediate discharge, and the criminal proceedings will terminate. While this provides swift relief to the accused, it may set a precedent allowing Public Prosecutors to intervene in private prosecutions without being directly involved, potentially undermining the complainant’s statutory right to seek justice. Such a precedent could discourage victims from filing private complaints, fearing that the State could later withdraw the case. For the administration of criminal justice, upholding the withdrawal could create a perception of imbalance favouring the State’s discretion over individual rights, whereas setting aside the order promotes a balanced approach that respects both prosecutorial authority and private victim autonomy. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore argue that the correct outcome aligns with the underlying policy of ensuring that criminal liability is determined through a fair trial, not through procedural maneuvers that sideline the complainant’s legitimate interests.

Question: Can the complainant challenge the magistrate’s order permitting withdrawal of the third accused by filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and what legal principles give that court authority to entertain such a petition?

Answer: The complainant may indeed invoke the revision jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court because the order in question was passed by a subordinate magistrate exercising judicial power under the criminal procedure code. Revision is a statutory remedy that allows a higher court to examine whether a lower court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, misinterpreted a legal provision, or committed a procedural irregularity that affects the rights of a party. In the present facts, the magistrate allowed a withdrawal application filed by a public prosecutor who was not “in charge” of the prosecution that originated from a private complaint. The legal principle that a private complainant‑prosecutor holds a distinct right to prosecute, separate from the state’s prosecutorial function, is well‑established. When a public prosecutor, who is not conducting the case, intervenes under the withdrawal provision, the lower court must determine whether the statutory conditions for such intervention are satisfied. The High Court’s power to correct an error of law in this context stems from its constitutional mandate to ensure that justice is not thwarted by a misapplication of statutory language. By filing a revision petition, the complainant asks the High Court to declare that the withdrawal order is void for lack of jurisdiction and to direct the magistrate to resume the trial as originally instituted. The petition must set out the factual background, identify the specific legal error—namely, the misreading of the “in‑charge” requirement—and request appropriate relief, which may include quashing the withdrawal order and directing the continuation of proceedings. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will be essential to draft a precise petition, cite relevant precedents, and present arguments that the High Court has both the jurisdiction and the duty to rectify the lower court’s mistake, thereby safeguarding the complainant’s substantive right to prosecute the third accused.

Question: Why might the accused consider retaining lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to oppose the withdrawal and protect his own procedural rights during the revision process?

Answer: The accused, although released on the basis of the withdrawal order, faces the prospect that the High Court could set aside that order and reinstate the trial. To safeguard his liberty and to ensure that any further proceedings respect his procedural safeguards, he would be well advised to engage lawyers in Chandigarh High Court. These practitioners possess specific experience in handling revision petitions, writ applications, and bail matters before the High Court, which sits in the same jurisdiction as the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Their familiarity with the court’s procedural rules, case management practices, and the expectations of the bench enables them to file appropriate applications for interim relief, such as a stay of the High Court’s decision pending a full hearing, or a bail application if the court orders the prosecution to resume. Moreover, the accused can rely on these lawyers to argue that the withdrawal was proper under the withdrawal provision, emphasizing the public prosecutor’s discretion and the lack of substantive evidence against the third person. By presenting a robust procedural defence, the accused can highlight that the High Court’s intervention should be exercised sparingly, especially where the accused has already been released and where the factual matrix does not warrant a revival of the case. The lawyers can also explore alternative remedies, such as filing a petition for review if the High Court’s order appears to be based on a misapprehension of fact. In sum, retaining lawyers in Chandigarh High Court equips the accused with the expertise needed to navigate the complex procedural landscape, protect his liberty, and ensure that any High Court order is subject to rigorous scrutiny before it translates into renewed custodial consequences.

Question: What procedural steps must the complainant follow after lodging the revision petition, and how does the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s power to quash the withdrawal order function in practice?

Answer: Once the revision petition is drafted, the complainant must file it in the registry of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ensuring that the petition complies with the court’s formatting, verification, and fee requirements. The petition must be accompanied by a certified copy of the magistrate’s order, the sessions court’s judgment affirming that order, and any relevant documents from the private complaint, such as the FIR and charge sheet. After filing, the petition is assigned a number and placed before a bench of judges. The court then issues a notice to the public prosecutor and the accused, directing them to file their responses within a stipulated period. During this stage, the High Court may also issue a temporary stay of the withdrawal order if the complainant demonstrates that the order causes irreparable prejudice to the prosecution of the third accused. The power to quash the withdrawal order arises from the High Court’s authority to correct errors of law made by subordinate courts. If the bench is convinced that the public prosecutor lacked the “in‑charge” status required by the withdrawal provision, it can declare the magistrate’s order void, thereby restoring the original prosecutorial posture of the complainant. The quashing order may be accompanied by directions to the magistrate to proceed with the trial, to frame charges, and to schedule further hearings. The High Court may also order the public prosecutor to refrain from filing any further withdrawal applications in the same matter. Throughout the process, the complainant should be prepared to argue that the lower courts erred in interpreting the statutory language, that the private complaint confers a distinct prosecutorial right, and that the public prosecutor’s intervention undermines the statutory balance between state authority and private initiative. The court’s decision, once rendered, is binding on the lower courts and will dictate whether the third accused will face trial or remain discharged.

Question: Why is a purely factual defence to the allegations against the third accused insufficient at this procedural juncture, and how does seeking a revision remedy address the substantive concerns of the case?

Answer: At the stage where the magistrate has already permitted withdrawal, the core dispute is not about the truth of the factual allegations but about the legality of the procedural act that terminated the prosecution. A factual defence—such as denying the alleged assault or intimidation—cannot overturn an order that was issued on the basis of statutory authority, because the court’s power to dismiss an accused on factual grounds is exercised only after the prosecution has been allowed to proceed. The withdrawal order effectively precludes any further examination of evidence, thereby rendering a factual defence moot. Consequently, the complainant must challenge the very foundation of that order by invoking the revision remedy, which is designed to correct jurisdictional errors and misinterpretations of law. By filing a revision petition, the complainant asks the High Court to scrutinize whether the public prosecutor had the requisite statutory standing to seek withdrawal, and whether the magistrate correctly applied the withdrawal provision. This procedural challenge reopens the avenue for the substantive issues—whether the third accused committed the alleged offences—to be examined on their merits in a trial. Moreover, the revision process ensures that the accused’s right to a fair trial is not circumvented by a procedural shortcut that bypasses evidentiary assessment. The High Court’s intervention, therefore, restores the balance between procedural propriety and substantive justice, allowing the complainant to present evidence, cross‑examine witnesses, and argue the factual defence in a proper trial setting. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to assist with the revision ensures that the petition is framed to highlight the procedural defect, while a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can argue the broader implications for the integrity of private complaints and the limits of prosecutorial power, thereby addressing both procedural and substantive dimensions of the dispute.

Question: How should the accused and his counsel evaluate the risk that the withdrawal order, issued by the magistrate on the public prosecutor’s application, might be set aside on revision, and what immediate steps should be taken to preserve the accused’s liberty pending that outcome?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was released after the magistrate accepted a withdrawal application filed by a public prosecutor who was not in charge of the private prosecution. The legal problem centres on whether that application was valid. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would first assess the likelihood that the revision petition filed by the complainant will succeed. The key risk is that the higher court may find the withdrawal void, thereby reinstating the charge and ordering the accused to appear again. To mitigate this, the defence should immediately move for a stay of the revision order, arguing that the accused has a right to liberty and that any reversal should not be retroactive without a hearing. Simultaneously, the counsel must file an application for interim bail, citing the procedural defect in the withdrawal and the fact that the accused has already been discharged. The defence should also request that the court preserve the material evidence, such as the FIR, medical reports, and any statements, to prevent tampering. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the accused’s custody status be documented, and that any further police action be recorded in writing to create a paper trail. The defence must also ensure that the accused’s passport, if any, is not seized, and that the accused is not compelled to appear before the trial court without a clear notice. By securing a stay and bail, the accused safeguards his personal liberty while the revision proceeds. Moreover, the counsel should prepare a detailed affidavit outlining the procedural irregularity, the lack of “in‑charge” status of the public prosecutor, and the statutory limitation on withdrawal, to be filed with the stay application. This proactive approach reduces the chance of re‑imprisonment and positions the defence to argue effectively before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the merits of the revision.

Question: Which documentary evidence and forensic material should the complainant gather to strengthen the revision petition, and how can lawyers in Chandigarh High Court ensure that these documents are admissible and not vulnerable to challenge?

Answer: The revision hinges on proving that the public prosecutor lacked authority to withdraw the prosecution. To that end, the complainant must assemble the original private complaint, the magistrate’s order granting withdrawal, the public prosecutor’s application, and any correspondence indicating the prosecutor’s lack of charge over the case. Additionally, the complainant should collect the FIR, the police investigation report, statements of witnesses, medical certificates documenting any injuries, and any audio‑visual material from the park incident. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would verify that each document bears the appropriate seal, signature, and date, and that the chain of custody for forensic evidence is intact. The counsel should obtain certified copies of the magistrate’s order and the public prosecutor’s application, and ensure that the original documents are preserved in a secure location. Forensic material, such as ballistics reports or weapon analysis, must be accompanied by a certified lab report and an affidavit from the expert confirming authenticity. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would also recommend filing a pre‑emptive objection to any anticipated challenge on the ground of hearsay, by attaching the statutory provisions that allow private complaints to be treated as public prosecutions for evidentiary purposes. The counsel should prepare a detailed index of exhibits, cross‑referencing each piece of evidence to the factual narrative of the alleged assault and intimidation. By presenting a coherent documentary bundle, the complainant demonstrates that the withdrawal was not based on a thorough assessment of the evidence, thereby justifying the High Court’s intervention. Moreover, the counsel must ensure that any electronic records are printed and signed, and that the original digital files are retained, to counter claims of tampering. This meticulous preparation fortifies the revision petition against procedural attacks and underscores the substantive merit of continuing the prosecution.

Question: What procedural defects in the magistrate’s and Sessions Court’s handling of the withdrawal application can be highlighted to argue that the orders should be set aside, and how should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court frame these defects in the revision petition?

Answer: The core procedural defect is the failure to apply the two‑fold test that requires the public prosecutor to be both a statutory prosecutor and “in charge” of the specific prosecution. The magistrate’s order ignored this requirement, treating the public prosecutor’s rank alone as sufficient authority. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would point out that the magistrate did not invite the complainant‑prosecutor to contest the withdrawal, thereby denying the principle of audi alteram partem. Moreover, the Sessions Court affirmed the magistrate’s order without independently examining whether the public prosecutor had taken charge, constituting a breach of the duty to scrutinise jurisdictional limits. The revision petition should therefore allege that the lower courts committed an error of law by misinterpreting the statutory language and by overlooking the procedural safeguard that a private complaint confers exclusive prosecutorial control to the complainant. The counsel must cite precedent where the higher court emphasized the necessity of “in‑charge” status, and argue that the magistrate’s reliance on the public prosecutor’s rank alone created a jurisdictional overreach. Additionally, the petition should highlight that the withdrawal was granted on the basis of a settlement willingness, which is irrelevant where the prosecution is private and the complainant’s consent is not a statutory ground for withdrawal. By framing the argument around these procedural lapses, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can request that the revision court set aside the withdrawal order, restore the trial proceedings, and direct the magistrate to conduct a fresh hearing where the complainant’s right to prosecute is respected. This approach underscores that the lower courts’ decisions were not merely factual errors but fundamental breaches of procedural fairness.

Question: How can the defence counsel develop a strategy to counter the complainant’s claim that the third person’s alleged involvement was merely conspiratorial, and what investigative steps should be taken to undermine that allegation?

Answer: The defence must dismantle the conspiratorial narrative by showing a lack of substantive linkage between the senior employee and the third person. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would begin by requesting the production of all communication records, such as phone call logs, messages, and email exchanges, between the two accused during the relevant period. The defence should also seek the police investigation report to identify any forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, that ties the third person to the scene. If the investigation did not collect such material, the defence can move for a direction to the investigating agency to undertake a fresh collection, arguing that the omission prejudiced the accused. Additionally, the counsel should examine the statements of witnesses for inconsistencies regarding the presence of the third person at the park, and file a cross‑examination plan to highlight contradictions. The defence can also present an alibi, if any, showing that the third person was elsewhere, supported by attendance registers, CCTV footage, or travel tickets. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise filing an application for a forensic re‑examination of any weapon recovered, to establish whether it matches the firearm allegedly used, and to determine if the third person had any contact with it. By systematically challenging the evidentiary basis of the conspiracy charge, the defence creates reasonable doubt. Moreover, the counsel should argue that the withdrawal application, though procedurally flawed, reflected the prosecution’s own assessment of weak evidence, reinforcing the defence’s position. This multi‑pronged strategy not only attacks the factual basis of the conspiracy allegation but also underscores procedural irregularities, thereby strengthening the case for setting aside the withdrawal and proceeding to trial.

Question: What are the key considerations for filing a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court versus a writ petition in the Chandigarh High Court, and how should lawyers in both courts decide the optimal forum?

Answer: The revision mechanism is designed to correct errors of law made by subordinate courts, while a writ petition addresses violations of fundamental rights or jurisdictional excesses. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would evaluate whether the magistrate’s order and the Sessions Court’s affirmation constitute a pure error of law concerning the public prosecutor’s authority. If the primary grievance is the misinterpretation of statutory provisions, a revision petition is the appropriate vehicle, as it allows the High Court to examine the lower courts’ application of law without delving into the merits of the evidence. Conversely, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would consider a writ petition if the accused or complainant can demonstrate that the withdrawal order infringed upon the right to a fair trial, liberty, or the procedural guarantee of being heard, which are enforceable under constitutional provisions. The writ route may be advantageous if the parties seek immediate relief, such as a stay of the withdrawal order, because writ courts can grant interim orders more swiftly. However, the writ jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional or constitutional breaches, and the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the issue is merely a question of statutory interpretation. Therefore, the counsel must weigh the urgency of relief, the nature of the grievance, and the procedural posture. If the parties aim to overturn the withdrawal on the ground of statutory misapplication and wish to restore the prosecution, filing a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court is prudent. If they also want to protect the accused’s liberty pending that decision, a parallel writ petition in the Chandigarh High Court for a stay may be filed, ensuring that both procedural and constitutional dimensions are addressed. This dual approach maximises the chances of obtaining comprehensive relief while respecting the distinct jurisdictions of the two High Courts.