New Delhi, January 21
In a judgment of wide ramification in the context of the government often found withdrawing cases, specially against the politicians, the Supreme Court has held that a criminal case cannot be withdrawn at the will of the State but must to approved by the trial judge.
Sending down clear signals to the High Courts and the trial courts in this regard, a Bench of Mr Justice K G Balakrishnan and Mr justice B N Srikrishna said “Even if the government directs the public prosecutor to withdraw the case by the prosecution and an application is filed to that affect (with the trial judge), the court must consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether the withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice.”
“Every crime is an offence against the society and if an accused committed the offence, society demands that he should be punished. Punishing the person who perpetrated the crime is an essential requirement for maintenance of the law and order and peace. Therefore, the withdrawal of the prosecution shall be permitted only when valid reasons are made out for the same,” the Court observed.
Asking the courts below to exercise the discretion under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding withdrawal of a case ‘carefully’, the apex court said before granting permission to the government to withdraw the prosecution case, due regard has to be given to all relevant facts of the case.
“The law is vary clear that the withdrawal of prosecution case can be allowed only in the interest of justice,” the Bench said clarifying that if a case was likely to end in an acquittal and continuance of it was only causing severe harassment to the accused, the court
might permit government to withdraw not otherwise. The ruling came on a petition by Rahul Agrawal from Katni in Madhya Pradesh, against M P High Court order permitting prosecution to withdraw the case, registered on his complaint that one Rakesh Jain had assaulted him and threatened him with a revolver for filing a civil suit in a property dispute between them.
Since the Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Court had rejected prosecution application for withdrawal, Jain had filed an appeal in the High Court raising the issue of rejection of prosecution application despite government wanting to withdraw the case against him.
Ordering commencement for trial in the case by the First Class Judicial Magistrate at Katni, the apex court assailed the High Court for permitting the withdrawal, saying “not many reasons are given in the impugned order as to why the court allowed withdrawal of the prosecution... the order passed by it is not legally sustainable.”
The High Court failed to notice that the trial was not over and the case was posted for examination of the accused whereas the prosecution had given a flimsy reason that the accused was not a ‘habitual criminal’ for withdrawing the case, the Bench pointed out.
