Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the State under Section 528 read with Section 360 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to withdraw prosecution against BJP MLA Harlal Singh, for fabricating Class X marksheet in Zila Parishad election, a Division Bench of Inderjeet Singh and Bhuwan Goyal*, JJ., dismissed the petition, refusing to grant permission to withdraw case. The Court held that a withdrawal of prosecution cannot be granted mechanically and must be in the interest of the proper administration of justice and public interest. The Court found that the State Government failed to satisfy the Court as to how the broad ends of public justice would be met by withdrawing the prosecution.
Background
Based on a complaint by the respondent, an FIR was registered against the accused, BJP MLA Harlal Singh, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 & 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The complaint alleged that accused had submitted forged mark sheets and certificates of Class 10th to contest an election for the post of Member of Zila Parishad and was subsequently elected. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. During the pendency of the case, a State Government committee decided to withdraw the case against the accused, currently a sitting MLA. The State filed the present petition seeking permission under Section 528 read with Section 360 of the BNSS for the withdrawal of the prosecution.
Analysis And Decision
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318, formulated principles on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The Supreme Couts had observed that 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. 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. Further, the Court’s function is judicial and supervisory, ensuring that the prosecutor’s decision is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons.
The Court noted that in Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710, which held that an application under Section 321 of the CrPC cannot be allowed solely on the ground that the State Government has taken such a decision. The court’s role is to ensure the application is made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart the process of law. Furthermore, in Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, (1980) 3 SCC 435, it was held that the Court has a responsibility to search for the reasons prompting the withdrawal and to protect the administration of criminal justice against possible abuse or misuse by the Executive. The independence of the judiciary requires that once the case has travelled to the Court, the Court and its officers alone must have control over the case and decided what is to be done in each case.
The Court noted that in light of Section 321 of the CrPC and the afore-stated judgments that the permission for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be for proper administration of justice and only in the public interest.
The Court found that in the present case the State Government’s committee had not provided a report or specific grounds/reasons for withdrawing the FIR in the minutes of their meeting.
The Court noted that,
“as per allegations, 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.”
The Court also noted that the accused’s challenge to the cognizance order had already been dismissed by a coordinate Bench of the Court. The Court observed that the petitioner’s failed to satisfy on how the withdrawal would serve the broad ends of public justice, public order, and peace, or how the application was made in good faith.
Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.
[State of Rajasthan v. Chimna Ram, S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 313/2025, decided on 21-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Bhuwan Goyal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Tanay Goyal
For the Respondent: Ramawatar Singh, Jassa Ram and Jai Kishan
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
