Allahabad High Court Upholds Rejection of Section 321 CrPC Withdrawal in SC/ST Act Case

The criminal appeal was filed by Chhote Lal Kushwaha and three others, challenging the order dated 26.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar, rejecting the Public Prosecutor’s application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution. The case arose from an application under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging that the complainant paid Rs. 80,000 to the appellants for arranging a visa and job in Qatar for her husband, which allegedly turned out to be unusable. Despite repeated demands, the money was not returned. It was further alleged that when the complainant demanded a refund, she was abused with caste-based slurs and threatened, leading to registration of offenses under IPC, the Disaster Management Act, and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

The Public Prosecutor sought withdrawal of prosecution based on a State Government communication dated 05.01.2024, stating that continuation of the case was not warranted. The complainant objected, asserting that serious offences involving caste-based abuses were made out and required a full trial. The Trial Court rejected the withdrawal plea, holding that the application lacked independent application of mind and that withdrawal would not serve public interest.

Main Issue: Whether a criminal prosecution involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act can be withdrawn under Section 321 CrPC solely on the basis of a State Government directive, without independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and judicial satisfaction of public interest.

HC’s Decision: The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting withdrawal of prosecution. The Court held that a mere intention or direction of the State Government to withdraw a case does not bind the Public Prosecutor or the Court. Relying on State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (Constitution Bench), and State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, the Court reiterated that withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC is permissible only when the Public Prosecutor applies an independent mind and the Court is satisfied that such withdrawal is in public interest and not intended to shield the accused.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had duly examined the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and other material indicating prima facie offences of cheating and caste-based abuse. It further noted that the Public Prosecutor’s application lacked independent reasoning and was therefore rightly rejected. No illegality, perversity, or impropriety was found in the impugned order. However, considering that the trial was pending since 2020, the High Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below