Deekshitha Sharmile

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh on Wednesday, December 3, declined to interfere with criminal proceedings arising from an Arms Act case against a former Lok Sabha MP. The Court dismissed the appeals and refused to quash the prosecution, thereby affirming an order of the Allahabad High Court that had rejected a plea for quashing. The Bench noted that the State government had sought to withdraw several cases, including the Arms Act matter, but had not first obtained the High Court’s permission for withdrawal of prosecutions involving MPs and MLAs, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, and held that the prosecutions must proceed.

The matter arose from multiple FIRs registered in June 2007 against the appellant, alleging violations under the Arms Act and the Indian Penal Code. The allegations concerned the possession and use of an arms license, which was claimed to be contrary to statutory provisions. A chargesheet was filed in July 2007, and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli in August 2007.

Also Read: Work-From-Home Status No Basis To Prefer One Parent For Child Custody; Supreme Court Dismisses Mother’s Appeal In Child Custody Revision Case

Subsequently, the District Magistrate restored the appellant’s arms license in July 2012, which had earlier been cancelled in December 2009. In August 2014, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order directing withdrawal of certain cases under the Arms Act, citing public interest and justice. Pursuant to this, the Public Prosecutor filed applications under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking withdrawal.

The Trial Court, however, noted that permission from the High Court was required in light of directions issued in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India. As the State did not seek such permission, the appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC/BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings. The High Court rejected these applications, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Bench recorded: “Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the Public Prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution.” It was further stated: “The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice.”

The Court observed: “The Public Prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution.” The Bench noted: “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.”

It was recorded: “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.” The Court stated: “The true function of the court when an application under Section 321 is filed is to ensure that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes.”

The Bench referred to earlier precedent: “Good faith is one and not the only consideration. The court must also scrutinise whether an application suffers from such improprieties or illegalities as to cause manifest injustice if consent is given.” It was further observed: “No prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16-9-2020.”

The Court recorded: “The Public Prosecutor who has a duty to assist the Court ‘with a fairly considered view’ on the case, in his application and in the interest of justice should disclose all reasons that weighed with them to put forward this application to the Court.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court In Trademark Passing Off Appeal Dismisses KMP Maker’s Challenge, Upholds Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Resembling Shalimar’s

The Court directed: “As is obvious, this permission is missing in the present case. The impugned judgment therefore cannot be faulted with. The High Court has rightly dismissed the petition for quashing. The Appeals are dismissed. We clarify that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the case and any and all contentions available to the appellant are left open for him to take at the appropriate stage be it discharge or trial. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv. Mr. B.p Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR

Case Title: Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar vs State of U.P
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1378
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5196–5201 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.6421 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh