UP Govt Withdrew 77 Cases Relating To Muzaffarnagar Riots Without Giving Any Reason: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was today informed that the Uttar Pradesh Government has withdrawn 77 criminal cases, pertaining to the 2013 Muzzafarnagar Riots, without assigning any reasons. Some of these cases pertained to offences punishable with a life term.

The development comes in the case concerning speedy disposal of cases against lawmakers, filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. Amicus curiae Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria filed a report today, stating that 510 criminal cases were registered in relation to the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013.

Of these, in 175 cases the charge sheet was filed, in 165 cases final reports were submitted, 170 cases were expunged.

The report further added,

"Thereafter 77 cases were withdrawn by the State Government under section 321 of Cr.P.C. The Government Orders do not give any reasons for withdrawal of the case under section 321 of Cr.P.C."

Apparently, the GO merely states that the administration after full consideration has taken a decision to withdraw the particular case.

The amicus also highlighted that many of such cases relate to offences of dacoity under section 397 I.P.C. punishable with imprisonment for life.

He suggested that the said 77 cases, which now stand withdrawn, may be examined by the High Court by exercising "revisional jurisdiction" under section 401 of Cr.P.C. in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith. In this case, the Top Court has directed that no prosecution against sitting or former MPs snd MLAs will be withdrawn without the permission of the High Court of the concerned state.

Hansaria's report further discloses that the Karnataka Government also withdrew 62 cases, again without assigning any reason for the same.

He insists that withdrawal from prosecution under section 321 Cr.P.C. is permissible in public interest and cannot be done for "political considerations". He suggests that in addition to the law laid down in the case of K. Ajith (supra), the following directions may be made:

• The appropriate Government may issue instructions to the public prosecutor only if the Government, in a given case, is of the opinion that the prosecution was launched maliciously and there is no foundation for prosecuting the accused.
• Such an order can be passed for reasons to be recorded for each individual case by the Home Secretary of the concerned State.
• No general order can be passed for withdrawal of prosecution of any category of persons or offences committed during a particular period.

The report is filed through Advocate Sneha Kalita.

Also Read: 51 MPs, 71 MLAs/MLCs Accused Under PMLA, 121 Cases Pending Against MPs/MLAs Before CBI Courts: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India