Public Prosecutor Has No Authority To Request Trial Court To Discharge Accused Once Application U/S 321 CrPC Is Rejected: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the Accused/Petitioners and by the State of Rajasthan for framing of charges against them by the Sessions Court and against the discharge of the Accused/Respondents by the Sessions Court respectively. The case concerned dacoity with murder and three chargesheets were filed against the Accused/Petitioners and Accused/Respondents.

Background:

The Superintendent of Police, Karauli, through the Public Prosecutor had submitted an application under Section 169 Cr.PC before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Karauli to release the Accused/Petitioners since the evidence against them was deficient.

It was stated that the Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the chargesheet was already filed against the petitioners and provisions of Section 169 Cr.PC could only be attracted before the submission of the chargesheet.

Further, the Prosecution submitted another application under Section 321 Cr.PC before the Court of Sessions Judge, Karauli for withdrawal of prosecution against the Petitioners. This application was rejected by the Sessions Judge.

The same was also rejected on appeal before the Rajasthan High Court and later by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Sessions Court discharged the Accused/Respondents of all charges.

The High Court in its judgement discussed the following: (a) discharge of the accused and framing of charges under Sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C and (b) Role of Public Prosecutor under Sections 225 and 226 Cr.P.C.

Discharge of the accused and framing of charges under Sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C

The Court noted that at the stage of framing of charges against the accused, it is enough to show that there is a prima facie case and that there are sufficient grounds available to proceed against the accused. The evidence is not required to be analysed as it is required to be done after the completion of the trial.

“…it is a well settled legal position that at the stage of framing of charge for an offence against an accused, prima facie it has to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings, evidence is not required to be analyzed as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial.”

It referred to the Supreme Court judgement of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) wherein the Apex Court laid down the principles to be observed by the Courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C.

Remarking that there is a prima facie case against the Accused/Petitioners, it rejected the Petitioners' claim to quash charges against them. It noted that it is for the Sessions Court to decide at the appropriate stage of the trial whether the accused were actually involved in the offence or were falsely booked.

Further, on the discharge of the Accused/Respondents by the Trial Court, it observed that there was a prima facie case to proceed against them on the basis of the chargesheet. It overturned the decisions of the Trial Court in discharging the Accused/Respondents and remarked that the “trial Court has unnecessarily meticulously examined the evidence in their favour as if the learned trial Judge was holding final trial against them.”

(b) Role of Public Prosecutor under Sections 225 and 226 Cr. P.C

The Court noted that the order of the Magistrate under Section 169 Cr.PC that rejected the discharge of Petitioners and order of the Supreme Court under Section 321 Cr.PC that rejected the withdrawal of prosecution against Petitioners has attained finality. Thus, it held that the Public Prosecutor is “duty bound to conduct prosecution against the accused persons and the prosecution is under a legal obligation under Sections 225 and 226 Cr.P.C. to open its case by describing the charges brought against the accused persons.”

The Court strongly disapproved the conduct of the Public Prosecutor who submitted written arguments in favour of the Petitioners and prayed for their discharge despite the application of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.PC being rejected by the Apex Court.

“The Public Prosecutor has no authority to request the trial Court to discharge the petitioners… once the application of the prosecution filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. has been rejected not only by the trial Court but also by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, under such circumstances, the Public Prosecutor is duty bound to follow the mandatory provisions, contained under Sections 225 and 226 Cr.P.C. Such conduct of the Public Prosecutor and the Department of Prosecution is totally unwarranted and the same is liable to be deprecated.”

Regarding the duty of the Public Prosecutor, it observed the Prosecutor has to safeguard the public interest in prosecuting a case by finding out the truth and ensuring adequate punishment for the offender.

It noted the Public Prosecutor “is part of the judicial system and an upright Public Prosecutor has no friends and foes in Court. He has no prejudices, preconceived notions, bias, hostility or his own axe to grind. He represents public interest but is not a partisan in the narrow sense of the term. He is expected to act in a “scrupulously fair manner” and present the case of the prosecution before the Court of law.” The Court mentioned that though the State could use its discretion to not prosecute any accused, it must however provide substantial reasons for seeking withdrawal of prosecution of the accused.

In the present case, the Court held that the Public Prosecutor has to follow his legal obligations under Sections 225 and 226 Cr. P.C and prosecute the Accused/Petitioners, as the request for withdrawal of prosecution against them was rejected by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the plea for discharge.

Taking serious note of the fact the investigation is still pending despite the lapse of 22 years, it directed the Director General of Police, Jaipur to pass orders for completion of investigation and submit the report without delay and also directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings.

Case: Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, CRLR/793/2005

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 99