Intention Of State Govt To Withdraw Prosecution Not Binding; Independent Scrutiny By Public Prosecutor, Court Compulsory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere expression of intention by the State Government for withdrawal of prosecution case does not bind the Court nor dilute the statutory requirement of independent scrutiny by both the Public Prosecutor and the Court.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order passed by the Special Judge in case registered under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 188 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51(b) Disaster Management Act, and Section 3(1)(da) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav held, "Upon consideration, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The learned Special Judge has meticulously examined the FIR, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and other material indicating cheating and caste-based abuses. A mere expression of intention by the State Government for withdrawal of prosecution case does not bind the Court nor dilute the statutory requirement of independent scrutiny by both the Public Prosecutor and the Court, particularly in prosecutions under the SC/ST Act."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Ankita Pandey, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

The Public Prosecutor, on the basis of a communication from the State Government, had filed an Application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking withdrawal of prosecution on the ground that the case did not warrant further continuation.

The Complainant filed objections, opposing withdrawal and asserting that the Prosecution was initiated only after her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed, and that the allegations involved offences against a member of a Scheduled Caste, warranting full trial.

The Trial Court, after considering the rival submissions, rejected the Application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., observing that the case involved serious allegations of cheating, caste-based insults were prima-facie supported by material on record, and withdrawal was not in public interest

Counsel for the Appellants contended that the contradictions in the Complainant’s statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were overlooked; that the visa issued was valid; and that the complainant’s husband voluntarily chose not to travel. It was argued that since the Governor and the State Government directed withdrawal, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the Application.

The Court after referring to Supreme Court's decision in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987), State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) rejected the submissions made by the Appellant.

"These authoritative pronouncements reinforce that the trial court’s approach in scrutinising prima facie evidence, considering the rights of the complainant, and noting the absence of independent reasoning by the Public Prosecutor is fully in consonance with Supreme Court principles", the Court held.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Chhote Lal Kushwaha And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (2025:AHC:222499)

Click here to read/ download  Order