Supreme Court sets aside order for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC: Abdul Wahab K. vs. State of Kerala (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 796

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Can a Public Prosecutor withdraw a criminal case simply because the government directs them to do so? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor must act independently and apply their own mind, and the Court must also ensure that the withdrawal serves the interest of justice. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case originated from a criminal proceeding against the 4th respondent for offences under Sections 195A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the pendency of the case, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition to withdraw from the prosecution. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed this application on 04.01.2012, permitting the withdrawal.

The appellant challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not properly considered the case’s merits and had failed to exercise jurisdiction correctly under Section 321 of the CrPC.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, while addressing the revision petitions, referred to several precedents, including Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi) v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, State of Kerala v. Vijayakumar and Rajender Kumar Jain v. State of Bihar. The High Court held that withdrawing from the prosecution would compromise public interest and policy. It emphasized that criminal proceedings are meant to punish offenders for the benefit of society, not to address private grievances.

The High Court noted that the consent of the court under Section 321 CrPC is crucial and involves considerations like the gravity of the crime, the impact of withdrawal, and public confidence in the legal system. While the nature of the offence is not a valid ground for rejecting withdrawal, the court must assess all reasons prompting the prosecution’s request. The High Court also stated that the Public Prosecutor must demonstrate an independent mind and act reasonably, keeping the society’s interest in mind.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions, stating that the petitioners were third parties with no locus standi to question the withdrawal.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which states:

“321. Withdrawal from prosecution. The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal, –
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences: Provided that where such offence –
(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or
(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or
(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or
(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case hag hot been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution.”

This provision allows a Public Prosecutor to withdraw a case with the court’s consent at any time before the judgment. The court’s consent is a crucial element, ensuring that the withdrawal is in the interest of justice and not merely based on executive orders.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not applied his mind independently and had merely accepted the government’s decision to withdraw the case. The appellant contended that the Magistrate failed to consider the merits of the case and the implications of the withdrawal for public interest. The appellant also argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petitions on the ground that the petitioners were third parties, ignoring the High Court’s power of superintendence.

The respondents, on the other hand, supported the High Court’s decision, arguing that the Public Prosecutor had the discretion to withdraw the case, and the Magistrate had correctly granted consent. They contended that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the withdrawal as they were not directly involved in the case.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in challenging the procedural aspect of the withdrawal, emphasizing the need for the Magistrate to apply his mind independently and not merely act as a rubber stamp for the government’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues that the Court addressed were:

1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had properly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 321 of the CrPC while granting consent for withdrawal of the prosecution.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision petitions on the ground that the petitioners were third parties with no locus standi.
3. Whether the Public Prosecutor had acted independently or merely followed the government’s instructions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited. The Court found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not applied his mind independently and had merely accepted the government’s decision. The Court also held that the High Court was wrong to dismiss the revision petitions on the ground that the petitioners were third parties.

The Court also analyzed the authorities cited and how they were used to come to the conclusion:

✓ Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [AIR 1987 SC 877]*: The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor must act in good faith and the Magistrate must independently consider the application for withdrawal.

✓ Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain [(2005) 2 SCC 377]*: The Court reiterated that withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in the interest of justice.

✓ Bairam Muralidhar v. State of A.P [(2014) 10 SCC 380]*: The Court highlighted the Public Prosecutor’s obligation to state the material considered and the court’s duty to give informed consent.

✓ V.L.S. Finance Limited v. S.P. Gupta and another [(2016) 3 SCC 736]*: The Court emphasized the Public Prosecutor’s duty to act in good faith and the court’s duty to ensure that withdrawal serves public interest.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to ensure that the Public Prosecutor and the Court act independently and in the interest of justice. The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor cannot act as a mere post office of the government and must apply his/her own mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also stressed that the Court must not mechanically grant consent for withdrawal and must ensure that the withdrawal is in the interest of public justice.

The ratio of fact to law in this case is as follows:

The Court emphasized the legal principles and precedents governing the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC, which constituted a larger portion of the consideration. However, the Court also took into account the factual aspects of the case, such as the Magistrate’s and the Public Prosecutor’s actions, which also influenced the decision.

The Court rejected the argument that the petitioners were third parties with no locus standi, emphasizing that the High Court has the power of superintendence and should have considered the merits of the case. The Court also rejected the argument that the Public Prosecutor had the discretion to withdraw the case without applying his mind, emphasizing that the Public Prosecutor must act independently and in the interest of justice.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the withdrawal of prosecution must serve the interest of justice and not merely the convenience of the government or the accused. The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor and the Court have a duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is not misused. The Court also stressed that the Public Prosecutor is not to be totally guided by the instructions of the Government but is required to assist the Court. The Court is duty bound to see the precedents and pass appropriate orders.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“It is clearly manifest that the Public Prosecutor had not applied his mind but had only placed the Government notification on record.”

“It may be said with certitude that the revision petitions filed before the High Court were not frivolous ones. They were of serious nature.”

“He/she is not to be totally guided by the instructions of the Government but is required to assist the Court; and the Court is duty bound to see the precedents and pass appropriate orders.”

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or minority opinions. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Public Prosecutors must act independently and apply their own minds when deciding whether to withdraw a criminal case. They cannot merely follow government instructions.
• The Court must not mechanically grant consent for withdrawal of prosecution. It must ensure that the withdrawal is in the interest of justice and not merely based on executive orders.
• Third parties who bring to the notice of the High Court, any error in the lower courts, cannot be treated as strangers.
• The High Court has the power of superintendence and must apply its mind to the correctness of the lower court’s orders.
• The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court remitted the matter to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to reconsider the application for withdrawal of prosecution in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Public Prosecutor must act independently and apply their own mind when deciding whether to withdraw a criminal case under Section 321 of the CrPC. The Court must also independently assess the application and ensure that the withdrawal is in the interest of justice. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position as laid down in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and other cases, emphasizing the need for independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and the Court. It clarifies that the Public Prosecutor cannot act as a mere post office of the government and the Court cannot mechanically grant consent for withdrawal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor and the Court must act independently and in the interest of justice when considering the withdrawal of a criminal case under Section 321 of the CrPC. The matter was remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for reconsideration in accordance with the law.