BREAKING : Karnataka High Court Stays State Government Decision To Drop 61 Criminal Cases Against Ministers, MLAs

In a set back to the BS Yeddyurappa-led government, the Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed the government order dated August 31, by which it had decided to drop criminal prosecution in 61 cases against elected Representatives and Ministers.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Vishwajith Shetty ordered : "We direct that no further steps shall be taken on the basis of order dated Aug 31, 2020."

The court was hearing a petition filed by People Union of Civil Liberties, Karnataka, challenging the August 31 order wherein the Government has granted permission for the withdrawal of prosecution of the 61 cases, under the section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The court has directed the state government to file its statement of objections to the petition by January 22, 2021 and posted the matter for further hearing on January 29, 2021.

On the previous hearing, the court inits order had observed that : "No Court is bound by such a decision taken to withdraw from the prosecution. Even if an application is made under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, the Courts are duty bound to assess whether a prima facie case is made out or not and that the Court has power to reject the prayer".

As per the plea,  the cases being withdrawn include against the state's Law Minister JC Madhuswamy, Tourism Minister CT Ravi and Agriculture Minister B C Patil. A case from 2017 against Hospete MLA Anand Singh is also sought to be withdrawn. Advocate Clifton D' Rozario, appearing for the petitioners, had argued that the decision was against the rule of law.

The court had earlier referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of S.K.SHUKLA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, in which it is observed that even if government instructs to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of a case, the latter after applying his mind to the facts of the case may either agree with the instructions and file a petition before the Court stating grounds of withdrawal or disagree therewith having found a good case for prosecution and refuse to file the withdrawal petition. The decision also observed that in the event the Public Prosecutor disagrees, he will have to return the brief. It further observed that the Public Prosecutor cannot act like a post box or act on the dictates of the State Government and he has to act objectively as he is also an officer of the Court.