Allahabad High Court Allows State's Plea To Drop A Criminal Case Against UP's Cabinet Minister Dr. Sanjay Nishad

A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while dealing with a Criminal revision plea filed by the State Government challenging the order passed by Additional CJM, Gorakhpur in September this year rejecting the plea moved by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution against Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad.

With this, the Court also allowed Dr Nishad's separate plea filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the Additional CJM's order.

For context, Section 321 CrPC provides that the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor may file an application for withdrawal from prosecution with the consent of the Court.

Essentially, the case in question was lodged against Dr Nishad under Section 174 of the Railways Act (Obstructing running of train, etc.) on the allegations that Dr. Nishad, then Chairman of Nishad Ekta Parishad, along with a number of persons belonging to Nishad community, laid a demonstration at railway track due to which railway traffic was hampered.

During the pendency of the said case, the State of UP decided to withdraw the prosecution and the leave of the High Court for withdrawal of the prosecution was granted vide order dated in August this year.

Thereafter an application under Section 321 Cr. P. C. was moved by the Special Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution, which was rejected by the trial Court in September this year on the basis that the case is pending at the stage of final hearing.

The Court had also noted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay Versus Union of India, no leave was taken of the High to withdraw the case against Dr. Nishad.

Challenging the decision before the HC, the Government advocate submitted that the prosecution could be withdrawn at any stage during the pendency of the case.

Taking note of the arguments made and the facts of the case, the Court, while referring to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of The State Of Kerala vs K Ajith And Ors LL 2021 SC 328, noted that for withdrawal of prosecution, the consent of the Court is necessary.

The Court also noted that while submitting such an application, the Public Prosecutor is required to apply his own mind and the effect thereof on society in the event such permission is granted.

Importantly, in its order, the Court also recorded that the mere fact that the initiative had come from the government would not vitiate an application for withdrawal of prosecution and 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.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the HC has already given its leave to apply under Section 321 CrPC as per Ashwani Upadhyay's case and as per the nature of accusations and the facts of the matter, a case for withdrawal of the impugned prosecution was made out.

The Court further opined that the Public Prosecutor had applied his mind independently and exercised his discretion in accordance with law and therefore, as per the settled position of law and the facts of the present case, the Additional CJM's order suffers from patent illegality and perversity.

Consequently, the same was said aside and the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of the prosecution was allowed.

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad and a connected case

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 462

Click Here To Read/Download Order