The Supreme Court has held that criminal prosecutions involving sitting or former MPs/MLAs cannot be withdrawn without obtaining prior leave of the High Court, as mandated in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India. The Court ruled that any application for withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC must be preceded by independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor, disclosure of reasons, and judicial scrutiny by the competent High Court when legislators are involved.
In the present case, although the Uttar Pradesh Government decided to withdraw multiple criminal cases arising from FIRs related to Arms Act and IPC offences and the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 CrPC, the required permission from the High Court was never sought. The trial court rightly refused withdrawal and granted the State time to obtain the necessary approval, which was not done. Subsequent petitions seeking quashing under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS were correctly rejected by the High Court.
Reiterating principles from State of Kerala v. K. Ajith and Ram Naresh Pandey, the Bench emphasised that courts must ensure that withdrawal of prosecution is neither arbitrary nor intended to subvert justice, and that Public Prosecutors must present a reasoned, independent decision. For MPs/MLAs, the High Court alone can grant permission after examining public interest, propriety, and bona fides of withdrawal.
Holding that the statutory requirement was entirely unmet, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings and dismissed the appeals, leaving all merits open for consideration at the appropriate stage such as discharge or trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1378
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 03 December 2025