S. 321 CrPC | Mere State Govt's Intention To Withdraw Prosecution Not Binding; Independent Scrutiny By PP & Court Mandatory: Allahabad HC

Dismissing a criminal appeal filed by four accused persons in a case involving cheating and offences under the SC-ST Act, a Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav emphasised that the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC is permissible only when the Public Prosecutor acts independently and in good faith.

The Court thus upheld the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar, who had rejected the Public Prosecutor's application seeking withdrawal from the prosecution against the accused.

The High Court observed that the statutory scheme requires the Court to ensure that such withdrawal is in the "public interest" and not merely an attempt "to shield the accused".

Briefly put, an FIR was lodged pursuant to an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC. The complainant alleged that she had paid ₹80K the appellant (Chhote Lal Kushwaha) for arranging a visa and employment in Qatar for her husband.

Although a visa valid until February 23, 2019, was allegedly issued on January 1, 2019, the complainant claimed it was unusable.

It was further alleged that despite repeated demands, the money was not returned to her and the situation escalated when in May 8, 2020, she approached the appellants demanding her money.

She alleged that she was subjected to caste-indicating abuses and criminal intimidation by the appellant and his family members.

Following an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 504, 506, 188 of the IPC, Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act.

During the pendency of the trial, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 CrPC seeking withdrawal of the prosecution.

This application was based on a communication dated January 5, 2024, from the State Government, which suggested that the case did not warrant further continuation.

The complainant opposed this move, arguing that the prosecution was initiated only after judicial intervention under Section 156(3) CrPC and that it involved serious offences against a member of a Scheduled Caste.

The Trial Court, vide order dated July 26, 2024, rejected the withdrawal application. The Special Judge observed that the case involved serious allegations of cheating and caste-based insults which were prima facie supported by material on record.

The Trial Court held that the withdrawal was not in the public interest and noted that the Public Prosecutor's application "did not reflect independent application of mind".

Challenging the Trial Court's order, the appellants moved the HC, contending that the State Government's direction ought to have been followed by the Court and that the complainant's husband had voluntarily chosen not to travel.

Rejecting these contentions, Justice Yadav observed that the Special Judge had "meticulously examined" the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, indicating cheating and caste-based abuses.

The High Court held that the Public Prosecutor cannot act merely on the dictates of the Government. It noted that the Court is duty-bound to evaluate public interest, the rights of the victim and whether the prosecution is frivolous or vexatious.

Justice Yadav ruled:

"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".

Thus, finding no "illegality, perversity, or impropriety" in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit.

However, noting that the Sessions Trial has been pending since 2020, the Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings "preferably within a period of six months".