Karnataka HC Issues Notice On PIL Against Govt Order Directing Public Prosecutors To Withdraw Cases Against 'Highly Influential Persons'

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 27) issued notice on a PIL against a government order directing public prosecutors to withdraw 43 cases against persons accused of various offences including rioting, attempt to murder in breach of Section 321 CrPC, which is stated to include highly influential persons including politicians. 

As per Section 321 states that 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.

Issuing notice on the PIL a division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun while dictating its order said, "Learned advocate for petitioner is prima facie justified that the government has been exerting to the prosecutors in ordering them to withdraw the cases which is clear violation of Sec 321 CrPC. When Department of Prosecution and law have opined cases are not fit for withdrawal, the state govt has exceeded its authority to pass the impugned order. A strong prima facie case is made out there shall be notice to state government returnable on March 17".

It thereafter asked the State to file its response. 

The court further orally said to the petitioner, "You (petitioner) can show this order to the court where cases are pending. No court will permit withdrawal once PIL is pending. If court permits it will be at the peril of the court also". 

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Venkatesh Dalwai argued, "Government has no role to play in withdrawing the cases. It is the public prosecutor who has to decide. So far as this Section (321 CrPC) is concerned role of State government is not contemplated so far as withdrawal of cases as held by Apex court in several cases".

At this stage the court asked that cases were registered against whom. To this Dalwai said, "Against politicians etc. Surprisingly the home department had rejected the proposal". 

The court then said, "According to you this was initiated at the state level". Dalwai responded, "Yes but Only public prosecutor can initiate this". 

The court said that Supreme Court had said that public prosecutor is to receive instructions from the State.

To this Dalwai argued, "But now the State has directed the public prosecutors to withdraw the case without following the guidelines of SC, these are serious cases". 

Dalwai thereafter referred to a cabinet note and said, "Once prosecution department says it cannot be done then how can the order be passed"

The court further asked about the nature of offences which were sought to be withdrawn. Dalwai mentioned that the offences included assault on police, Hubbali riots case etc.

Dalwai, "Ultimately State can tell him (Prosecutor) but cannot force him. The prosecution department has rejected this proposal". 

The court thereafter in its order dictated, "The PIL petitioner herein is an advocate enrolled in KSBC who by filing present petition has sought to espouse an issue of public cause about, as contended by him. Decision of state govt in forcing the public prosecutors to withdraw the criminal cases in breach of Sec 321 of CrPC. It is the case of petitioner that several cases have been registered with different police stations between 2008 to 2023 out of these cases 43 cases are selected to be withdrawn. These involve highly influential personalities. The prayer is to set aside order dated 15-10-2024, passed by Competent authority. A reading of Sec 321 CrPC would indicate that prosecutor with consent of court before judgment is pronounced may withdraw prosecution". 

The court noted the petitioner's submission that discretion to withdraw lies with public prosecutor to be examined on case to case basis. It is submitted that it is the opinion of Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor would weigh in justifying the withdrawal of case. 

Relying upon a Supreme Court judgment the petitioner contended that the public prosecution department have already opined that cases sought to withdrawn are not fit for withdrawal and in this regard a cabinet note was produced before the court dealing with the subject of withdrawal of cases. The petitioner contended that even though the  Prosecution and Law department has given an opinion that these cases are not fit for withdrawal the impugned order was passed.

Case title: Girish Bharadwaj AND State of Karnataka 

Case No: WP 3817/2025