Justice K. Babu noted that while Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) permits prosecutors to withdraw cases with court approval, it also requires them to critically assess the evidence before deciding to withdraw.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court ruled the necessity for public prosecutors to independently evaluate cases and make decisions about withdrawals rather than simply following government directives, as established.
Justice K. Babu noted that while Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) permits prosecutors to withdraw cases with court approval, it also requires them to critically assess the evidence before deciding to withdraw.
The judge emphasized that prosecutors should not merely serve as conduits for government orders but must apply their own judgment in determining whether a case should be withdrawn, considering the public interest involved.
“It is essential for the public prosecutor to assure himself that each case is suitable for withdrawal from prosecution. Even if the government has requested a withdrawal, it is the prosecutor’s responsibility to review all relevant materials and, in good faith, ensure that public interest is served by withdrawing from prosecution,” the Court stated.
This ruling arose from a plea by Muhammed Ashraf, who challenged a trial court’s decision not to drop the prosecution against him. Ashraf had been accused of verbally abusing, threatening, and assaulting sub-inspector P.V. Nirmala of the Payyanoor police station. Nirmala alleged that Ashraf threatened to burn her during an investigation into a complaint regarding his brother, asserting that his political connections would protect him from consequences.
As a result, he was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 353 (assault or criminal force against a public servant), Section 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation). Despite evidence presented to the trial court, the assistant public prosecutor sought to withdraw the case under Section 321 of the CrPC, a request that the magistrate denied, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity for a trial.
Following this, Ashraf filed a revision petition with the High Court, contesting the trial court’s decision. The High Court noted that external influences appeared to have swayed the government’s decision to seek withdrawal and observed that the prosecutor did not fully assess the case before making the application.
The Court stressed that a prosecutor should not only apply for withdrawal but also provide a brief explanation regarding the materials considered in the case to help the court decide whether withdrawal is warranted.
“The application under Section 321 must affirm that the Public Prosecutor is, in good faith, satisfied, after considering all relevant materials, that withdrawing from prosecution serves the public interest and does not obstruct justice or cause injustice,” the Court remarked.
In this instance, the High Court dismissed the petition, taking into account the seriousness of the offenses and the public interest, and ordered the trial to proceed, directing its completion within three months. The Court also instructed the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint a lawyer for the victim.
Advocate Sunny Mathew represented the petitioner, while Advocate Shahna Karthikeyan appeared for the sub-inspector, and Public Prosecutor Neema Jacob represented the State.
Case Title: Muhammed Ashraf KA v The Sub Inspector of Police & ors
