Allahabad High Court Allows Withdrawal Of 2012 Riot Case Against Sitting BJP MLA RC Yadav

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a trial court order that rejected the State Government's application to withdraw criminal prosecution against BJP MLA (from Rudauli) Ram Chander Yadav in connection with the 2012 Idol Immersion Riot Case.

Allowing the State's plea for withdrawal from prosecution, a bench of Justice Rajeev Singh categorically observed that the Public Prosecutor's application before the trial court was filed "in good faith after careful consideration of the material on record".

The order was passed while dealing with the Section 482 CrPC plea moved by MLA Yadav and the revision plea filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Briefly put, as per the prosecution's original case, on October 24, 2012, certain Tractors carrying idols for immersion caused traffic congestion in front of the Rudauli Police Station. Although the Police instructed the drivers to move forward, they did not comply.

It was claimed that the applicant, then the local MLA, had instructed them to halt there by keeping the Idols till he reached in front of the Police Station. Due to this, a huge crowd gathered at the spot.

Thereafter, when MLA Yadav reached the spot, he informed the police that when the devotees were passing by a mosque, a boy from another community was accidentally coloured. This allegedly led to abuses and a quarrel, during which an idol was also broken.

The FIR alleged that the applicant made aggressive statements, demanding that the culprits be punished before the procession moved. While the movement of tractors later began on his advice, around 2,000 to 3,000 people had gathered in the village by then.

Thereafter, on the alleged provocation by the applicant, 250-300 persons began moving towards the village where the dispute had occurred with the people from the other community.

While the police personnel tried to convince them, they did not pay heed and started stone pelting on the persons of the other community and also attacked the police, in which many police personnel received injuries.

Therefore, the FIR in question was filed against the applicant.

Later on, an order for withdrawal of prosecution in relation to this FIR was passed by the State Government in June 2020. In October 2021, the trial court rejected the Public Prosecutor's application. On HC's direction, a fresh order was passed on the said application, but it was again rejected.

Hence, the State Government and the applicant moved the HC with the present petitions.

The Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was dragged into the present case due to political rivalry, purely on the basis of confessional statements made by co-accused persons.

It was also submitted that the withdrawal of prosecution would bury the dispute, bring harmony between the parties and serve the best interest of justice. The State Government also supported the withdrawal.

At the outset, the bench examined the mandate of Section 321 CrPC as well as various decisions of the Supreme Court on this provision to note that the ultimate guiding consideration for granting permission to withdraw from prosecution must always be the interest of the administration of justice.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in cases such as Bansi Lal versus Chandan Lal and Sheonandan Paswan versus State of Bihar, the Court noted that a Public Prosecutor must apply their mind independently and not interfere with the normal course of justice for ulterior purposes.

The bench noted that in this case, the Public Prosecutor had filed the application under Section 321 CrPC in good faith after careful consideration of the material available on record.

Crucially, the Court observed that the opinion for withdrawal of the prosecution was genuinely given on the basis of material provided to the Advocate General of the State of U.P.

It also noted that the applicant's involvement was found solely on the basis of the co-accused's statements.

In view of the above, the application under Section 482 CrPC, application for withdrawal from prosecution, as well as the Criminal Revision, was allowed.

Case title - Ram Chander Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 260

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 260

Click Here To Read/Download Order