Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed for quashing an order passed by the trial court disallowing the withdrawal application of the prosecution against MLA Ram Chander Yadav in a 2012 Riot Case, the Single Judge Bench of Rajeev Singh, J., allowed the application, holding that it could not be said that opinion for withdrawal of the prosecution was not taken and, therefore, the trial court wrongly presumed that the opinion of the Public Prosecutor was not obtained. The Court also noted that the withdrawal application filed under Section 321, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), appeared to be filed by the Public Prosecutor in good faith after careful consideration of the material available on record.
Background
As per the prosecution, on 24 October 2012 at about 01.00 p.m., several tractors carrying religious idols for immersion were standing in front of the Police Station, Rudauli, Ayodhya. A rally of people, proceeding for the immersion of idols, was playing music and beating drums, etc., resulting in traffic congestion.
The Station House Officer (SHO) and police asked the truck drivers to move ahead, but they refused, and a huge crowd gathered. Apparently, Ram Chander Yadav, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Rudauli, had asked the trucks to stay there until he reached the police station.
Thereafter, at about 2.20 p.m., MLA Ram Chander informed the police that when the devotees were passing by a mosque, unfortunately, colour was put on a boy belonging to another community, who started abusing and quarreling with the people who were in procession, and in that incident, an idol was also broken at Village Albana.
The FIR alleged that MLA Ram Chander gave aggressive statements like “don’t move until and unless the culprits are punished”. However, later, the trucks began on his advice and with the instruction that they should again create a jam at Paudhshala. The SHO, along with his companions, followed the procession and when they reached Village Albana. There, the crowd increased to around 2000—3000 people. Despite being informed by the police that an FIR had been registered against the person with whom the dispute occurred, one co-accused and his associates came, armed with a lathi and a danda, and began giving aggressive speeches stating that MLA Ram Chander had instructed him that until he reached there, idols should not be moved, as some persons tried to demean the majesty of the Hindu idols.
Thereafter, on their provocation, 250—300 persons started to move towards the village belonging to the other community without paying any heed to the police and started stone pelting on the persons of the other community. They also attacked the police, leaving many police personnel injured.
Accordingly, an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 333, 353, 336, 435, 504, 506, 120-B, and 295, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and Section 3 and 4, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. After the submission of the charge-sheet, the State Government passed an order for the withdrawal of prosecution in the FIR filed against MLA Ram Chander. However, the trial court denied the withdrawal of criminal prosecution. The appellate court allowed the appeal against the trial court’s order and remitted the matter back, but the trial court again rejected the withdrawal application vide the impugned order.
Hence, the present revision petition was filed.
Also Read: Supreme Court sets aside withdrawal of prosecution of MLA accused of double murder in broad daylight
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that under Section 321 CrPC, the ultimate authority to allow withdrawal from prosecution vests with the Court, and the guiding consideration must always be interest of administration of justice when deciding the question whether prosecution should be allowed to be withdrawn or not.
To understand the scope of Section 321 and the ambit of power and the way it shall be exercised by the Public Prosecutor, the Court referred to a plethora of judgments, which are as follows:
-
In Bansi Lal v. Chandan Lal, (1976) 1 SCC 421, the Supreme Court held that consenting to the withdrawal of the case on the view that the attitude displayed by the prosecution made it “futile” to refuse permission does not certainly serve the administration of justice.
-
In Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, (1977) 4 SCC 448, the Supreme Court held that the Public Prosecutor must keep in mind the administration of justice since he is discharging the statutory responsibility, and while discharging the statutory responsibility, the only factor which should be considered is the administration of justice and nothing else.
-
In State of Punjab v. Union of India, (1986) 4 SCC 335, the Supreme Court held that while granting permission to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution, the Court needs to be satisfied that the Public Prosecutor has properly exercised the statutory function and has not attempted to interfere with the normal course of justice for ulterior purposes. The administration of criminal justice should be the touchstone on which the application under Section 321 CrPC needs to be decided.
-
In S.K. Shukla v. State of U.P., (2006) 1 SCC 314, the Supreme Court held that the Public Prosecutor cannot work like a post box. He needs to act objectively as an officer of the Court, and it is always open to the Court to reject the prayer if it is not guided in the interest of the administration of justice.
-
In Rahul Agrawal v. Rakesh Jain, (2005) 2 SCC 377, the Supreme Court held that while considering an application moved under Section 321 CrPC, the Court should consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether the withdrawal from prosecution advances the cause of justice. The withdrawal can be permitted only when the case is likely to end in an acquittal, and continuance of the case would only cause severe harassment to the accused.
Thereafter, the Court stated that, on the bare reading of the application, it appeared that the Public Prosecutor had filed the application under Section 321 CrPC in good faith after careful consideration of the material available on record.
The Court noted that the original record revealed that MLA Ram Chander’s involvement was found merely based on the statement of the accused persons. Further, as per the allegations, on the date of the alleged incident, the idol immersion process was going on, but people became agitated due to some disturbance created by a person belonging to another community.
The Court further noted that the record also revealed that an opinion for withdrawal of the prosecution was given based on the material provided to the Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the Court held that it could not be said that the opinion was not taken and, therefore, the trial court wrongly presumed that the opinion of the Public Prosecutor was not obtained.
Accordingly, the application was allowed along with the application for withdrawal.
[Ram Chander Yadav v. State of U.P., Application U/s 482 No. 9838 of 2022, decided on 4-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the revisionist: Sr. Adv. Salil Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Kanishk Sinha
For the respondent: Additional Advocate General V.K. Shahi, Govt. Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh, Senior Counsel I.P. Singh, Vijay Kumar Verma