'High Court's Sanction Not Obtained To Withdraw Prosecution' : Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Ex-MP Bal Kumar Patel

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 3) refused to quash the Arms Act case pending against former Lok Sabha MP Bal Kumar Patel. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh upheld the Allahabad High Court's decision, declining to quash the proceedings, as the mandatory prior permission from the High Court for withdrawal of cases involving MPs/MLAs, as per the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India judgment, had not been sought or obtained by the State. The core legal issue stemmed from a Government Order (GO) dated August 6, 2014, by the Uttar Pradesh government, which decided to withdraw three Arms Act cases against the appellant "in public interest as well as in the interest of justice." The Governor granted permission to file the withdrawal application. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in an order dated October 8, 2021, noted the missing link, stating "the State had not sought permission of the High Court in accordance with Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) and as such permission to withdraw could not be granted." The Trial Court gave the State 30 days to seek this permission, which it never did. Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, which was rejected, leading to the present appeal. The judgment authored by Justice Karol noted that since the mandatory procedure prescribed in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay was followed, which directed that "no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court”, the court refused to interfere with the impugned findings, while also asserting the principles laid down in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, which require the Public Prosecutor to form an independent opinion and the court to exercise a "supervisory" judicial function to ensure the withdrawal is not for "illegitimate reasons or purposes." “Undoubtedly this is the duty of the Trial Court when applications for withdrawal from prosecution is made in regular course before the Court, however, we are of the considered view that the duty described above, of the applications of judicial mind, applies in letter and spirit to the High Court as well, when considering applications for permission in cases concerning MPs or MLAs, which can only be filed before it in terms of the law referred to supra. The Public Prosecutor who has a duty to assist the Court 'with a fairly considered view' on the case, in his application and in the interest of justice should disclose all reasons that weighed with them to put forward this application to the Court.”, the court observed. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed, granting leave to the prosecution to make an application seeking a withdrawal of the case before the High Court. “In view of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) this application disclosing the reasons for withdrawal of prosecution given by the Public Prosecutor as also the records of the case should be before the High Court which would exercise its judicial mind and give a reasoned order, granting or denying such permission.”, the court held. Cause Title: BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P (and connected cases)Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1164Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv. Mr. B.p Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shaurya Sahay , AOR

'High Court's Sanction Not Obtained To Withdraw Prosecution' : Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Ex-MP Bal Kumar Patel

Yash Mittal

Tags