The Supreme Court of India dismissed criminal appeals filed by Bal Kumar Patel, also known as Raj Kumar, refusing to quash ongoing proceedings. The Court stressed, ‘No Withdrawal of Cases Against Lawmakers Without High Court Leave,’ upholding the requirement.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a series of criminal appeals filed by Bal Kumar Patel, also known as Raj Kumar, refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against him.
The Division Bench, which included Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision, stating that the necessary permission from the High Court to withdraw the prosecution against a current or former Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) had not been obtained by the State.
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant could be quashed given that the State failed to seek permission from the High Court to withdraw the prosecution, as specified in the Supreme Court’s directives in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court concluded that the absence of the required permission from the High Court meant that the High Court’s decision to decline exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the proceedings was justified. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.
These appeals stemmed from a joint First Information Report (FIR) filed against Patel on June 12, 2007, concerning violations of the Arms Act, 1959, specifically Sections 25, 27, and 30, related to the possession of an arms license.
The facts indicate that Patel’s arms license was initially revoked in 2009 but was later reinstated by the District Magistrate of Raebareli on July 11, 2012.
Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed on July 25, 2007, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Raebareli took cognizance of the case on August 10, 2007. Years later, on August 6, 2014, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a directive to withdraw Case Crime Nos. 654, 655, and 656 of 2007 “in public interest and also in the interest of justice.”
Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor filed a motion under Section 321 of the CrPC on August 27, 2014, seeking to withdraw the cases.
However, on October 8, 2021, the Trial Court noted that the State had not sought the High Court’s permission as legally required, as established in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
The court allowed the State thirty days to seek this permission, warning that failure to do so would lead to the prosecution continuing in accordance with the law.
The State did not pursue the necessary permission. Subsequently, Patel approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to request the quashing of the proceedings, which was denied.
Patel appealed the High Court’s rulings, arguing that the necessary permission for withdrawing the prosecution had not been obtained.
The Supreme Court discussed established legal principles related to the withdrawal of prosecution.
Referencing State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021), the Court reiterated that while Section 321 CrPC entrusts withdrawal decisions to the Public Prosecutor, “consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution.”
The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor must form an independent opinion and the court must ensure that such applications are made in “good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.”
The Bench particularly cited the directive in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021), where a three-judge panel ruled,
“In view of the law laid down by this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16-9-2020.”
The Court also referred to a 1957 judgment in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, noting that the court’s role in granting consent is inherently judicial.
The Supreme Court stated that the application of judicial reasoning applies in letter and spirit to the High Court as well for requests to withdraw cases involving MPs or MLAs.
The Court clarified that, in line with Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, applications for permission for prosecution withdrawal should disclose the Public Prosecutor’s reasoning and include the case records for judicial evaluation, leading to a reasoned decision to grant or deny such permission.
Observing that “this permission is missing in the present case,” the Bench concluded that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition for quashing the proceedings.
The Supreme Court also noted that it had not made any judgment regarding the merits of the case, leaving all arguments open for the appellant to pursue at the appropriate stage, “be it discharge or trial.”