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 |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | None |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent under Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 321 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Article 136 Constitution) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318; Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 599; State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 22 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts when considering withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS in MP/MLA cases |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with criminal quashing applications |
| Follows | Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court leave under Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay is a mandatory precondition for withdrawing prosecution against sitting/former MPs or MLAs.
- Public Prosecutor’s application for withdrawal must disclose all reasons and records that informed the decision.
- High Courts must exercise a reasoned judicial mind—similar to trial courts under Ajith—when granting or denying leave.
- Absence of High Court permission renders any Section 321 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS application ineffective.
- This decision is a binding authority to counter quashing petitions lacking requisite High Court leave.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 321 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS) vests withdrawal discretion in the Public Prosecutor but makes court consent a supervisory judicial function (Ram Naresh Pandey).
- In State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, this Court outlined factors for granting consent: good faith, public justice, no improper motives, and public impact.
- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay mandated that no prosecution against sitting/former MPs/MLAs may be withdrawn without prior leave of the High Court.
- Public Prosecutors must form an independent opinion and disclose reasons; High Courts must scrutinise the application and record.
- Here, the State never obtained High Court leave; the High Court correctly refused quashing, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals without expressing on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant
- Government order and Public Prosecutor’s Section 321 application in public interest justified withdrawal.
- High Court should have granted quashing in absence of any substantive objections or trial-stage prejudice.
State (Respondent)
- Non-compliance with Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s leave requirement; High Court leave is jurisdictional.
- Withdrawal without High Court leave would undermine judicial oversight and statutory scheme.
Factual Background
The appellant, a licensed arms‐holder, faced FIRs from June 2007 alleging Arms Act violations; his licence was restored in July 2012. In August 2014, the State Government issued a G.O. withdrawing prosecutions in public interest and a Public Prosecutor moved under Section 321 CrPC. No High Court leave was sought as mandated by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Thereafter, the appellant filed quashing applications under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS; the High Court declined for want of leave, leading to these appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 321 CrPC & Section 528 BNSS: Consent of court is required to withdraw prosecution; scope includes public‐interest considerations beyond paucity of evidence.
- Article 136 Constitution: Special leave to appeal allows examination of High Court’s supervisory role.
- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay: Introduced mandatory High Court leave for withdrawal of prosecutions involving MPs/MLAs.
Procedural Innovations
- Public Prosecutor must file applications for withdrawal of prosecution against MPs/MLAs only before the High Court, disclosing reasons and records.
- High Courts are required to provide reasoned orders, applying judicial principles akin to those in Section 321 CrPC applications.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed