'Decide Prosecution's Plea To Withdraw Abduction Case Against Kunda MLA Raja Bhaiya Afresh': Allahabad HC Directs MP/MLA Court

The Allahabad High Court has directed a Special Judge MP/MLA/ Civil Judge (SD), Pratapgarh to decide afresh a plea moved by a Public Prosecutor seeking to withdraw an abduction and attempt to murder case against Kunda MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (Raja Bhaiya), MLC Akshay Pratap Singh and others.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on an application moved by Raja Bhaiya, Akshay Pratap Singh and others challenging the order of a Special Court in March 2023 whereby the application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of the prosecution against the applicants had been rejected.

It was the case of the applicants that they were implicated in the FIR for political motives during the Bahujan Samaj Party regime in 2010 and though the Samajwadi Party government decided on March 4, 2014, to withdraw the case against them, the special court dismissed the state government's application in March 2023 on the grounds that the alleged offences were grave and the plea for withdrawal of cases had been moved by the prosecution for improper and extraneous reasons.

Referring to the Apex Court's rulings in the cases of Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar 1987, Rajender Kumar Jain vs. State 1980 and State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith LL 2021 SC 328, the High Court observed the following principles govern the law regarding the withdrawal of criminal cases:

(i) The withdrawal from the prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor and he has to exercise the discretion to withdraw from the prosecution independently. However, the Government may suggest to the Public Prosecutor that he may withdraw from the prosecution, without compelling him to do so.

(ii) The mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, if the public prosecutor is satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons.

(iii) The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution on the ground of paucity of evidence or on any other relevant ground in order to further the broad ends of public justice, public order and peace.

(iv) The Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court and responsible to the court. However, the Court is not required to reappreciate the grounds which led the Public Prosecutor to request withdrawal from the prosecution While granting its consent to the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321, the Court performs a supervisory function and it has to examine whether the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind properly, uninfluenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations and the application has been moved by him in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice or whether the move for withdrawal is an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes.

(v) If the court finds that the material before it is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime, it has to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be, notwithstanding the fact that the crime complained of is a grave one.

Against the backdrop of these principles, when the Court examined the facts of the present case, it noted that although the FIR alleged that initially only two named persons and about a dozen other persons riding two SUVs had apprehended the complainant and his companions and when he reached Kotwali Kunda, several persons riding two Fortuner SUVs and about a dozen other vehicles started firing shots with weapons towards the informant and his companions, however, the complainant had named only 13 persons as accused in the FIR and he did not allege the involvement of any other unnamed persons in the FIR.

The Court further noted that the alleged indiscriminate firing made by numerous persons riding more than a dozen vehicles towards the informant and his companions did not result in any single gunshot injury to any person.

Further, the Court perused the application for withdrawal of prosecution to note that the Public Prosecutor had specifically stated that he had applied his independent mind and perused the entire material available on record and he was of the view that the decision taken by the Government to withdraw the prosecution was in accordance with law.

The Court also noted that the informant too, had filed an application before the trial court supporting the application filed by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution and he had filed a counter affidavit before this Court supporting the withdrawal of prosecution stating that he had lodged the FIR under political pressure.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that the decision taken by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution keeping in view the aforesaid weaknesses and discrepancies in the prosecution case is based on cogent reasons.

Therefore, the Court directed the trial Court to decide the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by the State afresh keeping in view the observations made in this judgment.

Case title - Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139

Click Here To Read/Download Order