Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan, Division Bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal, has dismissed a petition filed by the State seeking withdrawal of a prosecution. The Court concluded that no case was made out for the exercise of power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered dismissal of the State’s application. The Bench recorded that the petition was devoid of merit and could not be sustained. The judgment stated that the Court was not satisfied that withdrawal of prosecution would serve the broad ends of public justice, public order, or peace, and therefore, rejected the plea for withdrawal of the case.

The petition was filed under Section 528 read with Section 360 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the State of Rajasthan. The State sought permission to withdraw prosecution in a criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar, District Churu. The case originated from FIR No. 17/2019 lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Churu, based on a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. The offences alleged included Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read: Supreme Court Affirms Preferential Right of Landowners in Slum Redevelopment | Acquisition by Slum Rehabilitation Authority Held Invalid Under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act

The allegations were that the accused, Harlal Singh, had submitted forged mark-sheets and certificates of Class X along with his nomination papers for the election to the post of Member, Ward No. 16, Zila Parishad, Churu. It was alleged that Singh knowingly used forged documents to contest and win the election. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against Singh.

Subsequently, during the pendency of the case, a State-level committee was constituted, which decided to withdraw the case. The accused, Harlal Singh, is a present Member of the Legislative Assembly from Churu constituency. Consequently, the State filed the instant application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of prosecution.

The Advocate General, appearing for the State, argued that although the charge sheet was filed under various provisions of IPC, no sufficient evidence existed on record to establish that Singh had fabricated the documents. He contended that charges were wrongly framed against Singh, as the necessary evidence was absent. Regarding Section 120-B IPC, the Advocate General argued that the charge required existence of two or more accused persons, but only Singh was charge-sheeted. Thus, the charge was defective.

He further submitted that offences under Section 193 IPC relating to false evidence had a separate procedural mechanism under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 IPC. In this case, the procedure had not been followed, as the FIR was filed by a private person, four years after the alleged commission of the offence. Relying on provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Advocate General argued that only the Election Officer or a public servant was empowered to file such complaints, but here a private complaint was made, which was not maintainable.

Additionally, he submitted that Singh had contested elections in 2015, and his term expired in 2020. He also noted that the qualification of Class X pass had been removed from eligibility requirements. Thus, pursuing prosecution would not serve any end of public justice. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2019) 3 SCC 318, contending that cognizance under Section 193 IPC on the basis of a private complaint was impermissible.

The counsel for the respondent-complainant opposed withdrawal, stating that Singh had earlier filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR but had withdrawn it. His revision against cognizance was also dismissed, and another revision against framing of charges was pending. The respondent’s counsel argued that the State-level committee provided no reasoning or opinion in recommending withdrawal of prosecution. Therefore, he prayed that the application for withdrawal be rejected.

The Bench considered the submissions of both sides and examined the material on record. Referring to Section 321 Cr.P.C., the Court observed: “The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried.”

The Court then cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith & ors. AIR 2021 SC 3954, which laid down principles regarding withdrawal of prosecution. Quoting paragraph 23, the Bench noted: “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… 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 public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution.”

The Court further recorded: “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 also relied on Abdul Kareem and others vs. State of Karnataka (2008 SCC 710), where the Supreme Court held that withdrawal cannot be allowed merely on the ground of the State Government’s decision. Instead, the application must be bona fide, in public interest, and free from impropriety or illegality.

In Rajendra Kumar vs. State through Special Police Establishment (1980 3 SCC 435), the Supreme Court stated that it was the duty of the Public Prosecutor to inform the court of the grounds for withdrawal, and the court must examine whether those reasons are valid. Both the judiciary and prosecution have a duty to protect criminal justice from abuse.

The Bench also referred to Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 529), where the Supreme Court held: “Merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public… Such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest, especially in cases of involvement of influential people.”

The Court then applied these principles to the present case. It observed that the State Government neither submitted any report indicating the Public Prosecutor’s satisfaction nor provided reasons for withdrawing FIR No. 17/2019. The minutes of the State-level committee meeting dated 26.11.2024 revealed allegations that Singh had fabricated mark-sheets of Class X and used them to contest elections.

The Court recorded: “Accused fabricated mark-sheet of Class X, on the basis of which, he submitted nomination papers for contesting the election of Member, Zila Parishad, in which he was declared elected and held the public office and utilized public money. Such matters of a 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.”

Also Read: Forged Certificate Invalidates Appointment | Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal Of BMTC Driver

The Court noted that cognizance of offences had already been taken and charges were framed. The accused’s revision petitions challenging cognizance had been dismissed earlier. Therefore, the Advocate General’s argument about defective charges could only be raised in the pending revision challenging the framing of charges. The Bench observed: “Learned Advocate General has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how broad ends of public justice, public order and peace would met in withdrawing the prosecution nor has he satisfied that present application has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart of stifle the process of law.”

The Division Bench held: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no case to exercise the power under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the applicant.” The Court categorically concluded that the application lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it.

The judgment concluded: “Consequently, instant criminal misc. petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tanay Goyal

For the Respondents: Mr. Ramawatar Singh, Mr. Jassa Ram and Mr. Jai Kishan through VC

Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs. Chimna Ram

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:36883-SB

Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 313/2025

Bench: Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal