Withdrawal Of Prosecution

 

 

IN THE judgement of the case – State of Rajasthan v. Chimna Ram, delivered on August 21, 2025, Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, have found it noteworthy that during the course of arguments, the Advocate General has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how broad ends of social justice, public order and peace would meet in withdrawing the prosecution nor has he satisfied that the present application has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. On the basis of complaint, filed by the respondent-complainant, FIR 17/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Churu for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 193 and 120-B of IPC, wherein the allegation was that accused, who is sitting MLA from Churu at present, Harlal Singh submitted his nomination for election on the post of Member, Ward No. 16, Zila Parishad, Churu and along with nomination papers mark-sheet and Class X passed certificate and used them as genuine knowing well that same were forged. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused Harlal. During pendency of criminal case, the State Government constituted a committee which took a decision to withdraw criminal case pending against the accused, who is sitting MLA from Churu.

 

Therefore the State has moved this application seeking withdrawal of the said prosecution under section 321 of CrPC. The question regarding exercise of power by the Public Prosecutor under section 321 of CrPC and the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court came to be executed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K Ajith and others – AIR 2021 SC 3954, wherein principles on the withdrawal of a prosecution under section 321 of CrPC have been formulated.

 

The relevant para 23 of the judgement reads as under: “23. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under section 321 of CrPC can now be formulated: (i) Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the Public Prosecutor but the consent of the Court is required for withdrawal of a prosecution; (ii)The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further broad ends of public justice; (iii) The Public Prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the Court to withdraw from the prosecution; (iv)While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the Government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the Court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the Public Prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons. (v) In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the Court exercises a judicial function, but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied. (vi) While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution sub-serves the administration of justice, the court would be justified in scrutinising the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especially where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated; and (vii)In a situation where both the trial judge and the revision court have concurred in granting or refusing consent, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings.

 

The Court may in exercise of well-settled principles attached to the exercise of this jurisdiction, interfere in a case where there has been a failure of the trial judge or of the HC to apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhold consent.” In the judgement of the case –Abdul Kareem and others v. State of Karnataka-(2008) SCC 710, it has been held by the Apex Court that an application under section 321 of CrPC could not be allowed only on the ground that the State Government has taken a decision for withdrawing the prosecution and such an order could not be passed after examining facts and circumstances of the case and further, it has been held that what has the Court to see as to whether the application has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. After considering the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court has to see whether the application suffers from improprieties or illegalities as would cause a manifest injustice, if consent was given. In the case of Rajendra Kumar v. State through Special Police (Establishment)-(1980) 3 SCC 435, it has been held that it shall be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to inform the grounds for withdrawal to the Court and it shall be the duty of the Court to authorise a search of the reason, which prompt the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution.

 

The court has a responsibility and a stake in the administration of criminal justice and so as to Public Prosecutor, its ‘Ministers of Justice’. Both have a duty to protect it from possible abuse or misuse. It is well- settled that permission for withdrawal of prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be only in public interest. In the present case, neither the State Government has submitted the report regarding the satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor, nor the grounds/reasons for withdrawing the FIR No. 17/2019. Such matters of gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused or that he is elected Member of Legislative Assembly. In result, the Rajasthan High Court is of the view that no case to exercise the power under section 321 of CrPC is made out in favour of the applicant and in view of the application having no merits, it has been dismissed.