Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005196-005196 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 20628/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies and reaffirms the mandatory requirement for High Court leave under Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay; binding on High Courts and trial courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (CrPC, BNSS) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in terms of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, withdrawal of prosecutions against sitting or former MPs/MLAs requires leave of the High Court, and such applications must be accompanied by the reasoning of the Public Prosecutor and the relevant case records so that the High Court can exercise a judicial function, applying its mind and rendering a reasoned order. The duty to scrutinise the propriety of withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC extends to High Courts under Section 482 CrPC and BNSS, and the absence of High Court permission mandates dismissal of quashing petitions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant held an arms licence and faced an FIR in 2007 for alleged Arms Act violations; the licence was restored in 2012; the State Government in 2014 decided to withdraw prosecution via Government Order, and the Public Prosecutor filed a Section 321 CrPC application in the trial court; no High Court permission under Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay was obtained, leading to dismissal of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | High Courts considering Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS quashing petitions and trial courts on Section 321 CrPC withdrawal applications in MP/MLA cases |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts evaluating withdrawal of prosecution applications |
| Follows | Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Withdrawal of prosecution against sitting or former MPs/MLAs mandatorily requires High Court leave under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, per Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
- The High Court must receive the Public Prosecutor’s application disclosing all reasons for withdrawal and the case records to exercise its judicial discretion.
- Absent High Court permission, quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS must be dismissed, regardless of a Government Order directing withdrawal.
- The duty to apply judicial mind under Section 321 CrPC, as elaborated in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith and Ram Naresh Pandey, extends equally to High Courts when considering leave applications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reiterated Section 321 CrPC principles from State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, emphasizing that withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor requires court consent after judicial scrutiny of the grounds.
- It applied Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s mandate that no prosecution against MPs/MLAs can be withdrawn without High Court leave, and pending or disposed withdrawals since 16-9-2020 must be examined under these guidelines.
- Citing State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, the Court stressed that reasons are the soul of judicial and administrative functions, requiring the Public Prosecutor to disclose all material reasons when seeking withdrawal.
- Concluding that the State did not obtain High Court permission, the Court upheld the High Court’s dismissal of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS and left all substantive contentions open for trial or discharge.
Factual Background
Between 2007 and 2014, the appellant—an arms licence holder—was prosecuted under the Arms Act following an FIR dated 12 June 2007. His licence, cancelled in 2009, was restored by the District Magistrate in July 2012. In August 2014, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued a G.O. directing withdrawal of prosecutions and the Public Prosecutor filed a Section 321 CrPC application in the trial court. No leave was sought from the High Court under Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, resulting in dismissal of subsequent quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 321 CrPC: Empowers the Public Prosecutor to apply for withdrawal of prosecution with court consent; requires judicial scrutiny of reasons.
- Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS: High Court’s inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings; now requires leave for withdrawal in MP/MLA cases per Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
- Government Order compliance: A G.O. alone cannot substitute the High Court leave mandated for withdrawal of MP/MLA prosecutions.
Procedural Innovations
- High Courts must treat leave applications for withdrawal in MP/MLA cases as judicial proceedings, requiring full disclosure of the Public Prosecutor’s reasons and contemporaneous records.
- The decision cements that Government Orders directing withdrawal cannot bypass the statutory requirement of High Court leave under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies existing Supreme Court guidelines on withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC and leave requirements under Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.