Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that merely on the grounds of good public image of the accused there can be no withdrawal from prosecution.   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 

What is the Background of Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Case?

• The First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the five named accused persons and against two unknown persons under Section 147, Section148, Section 149, Section 307 and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons fired indiscriminately at the complainant and other persons owing to which two of the persons died. 
• During the investigation names of Chhote Singh and Ganga Singh were arrayed as unknown persons. 
• Accused Chhote Singh was elected as member of legislative Assembly. 
• There was a Government order passed granting permission to withdraw prosecution with respect to all accused persons. 
• The Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh on the ground that he was respected citizen of the society. With respect to other accused persons the application was rejected. 
• The first informant filed a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court against the withdrawal of prosecution. 
• In 2023, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, following which he approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly this cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. 
• The Court further observed that withdrawal from prosecution merely on the grounds of good public image of accused is impermissible. 
• Thus, the Court set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of the accused as allowed by the Trial Court. 

What is Withdrawal from Prosecution under Section 321 of CrPC? 

• In Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), withdrawal from prosecution has been provided for under Section 321 of CrPC. 
• According to Section 321 CrPC, only the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor who is in charge of a particular case can apply for withdrawal from the respective case. 
• This Section provides that the consent of the Court should be taken before withdrawal. 
• The withdrawal can happen at any time before the pronouncement of judgment. 
• Further, it can happen generally or in respect of any one or more offences for which the accused is tried.  
• The consequences of withdrawal from prosecution are : 

• The proviso provides that for following offences the prosecutor has to get permission from the Central Government for withdrawal of prosecution if the prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government. 
  • Also, the Court before granting consent in the above cases would direct the prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution. 
  • The offences on which the proviso applies are: 

What are the New Features Added by Section 360 of BNSS? 

• Section 360 of BNSS makes changes in the proviso which will come into play in those cases where permission of Central Government is required before withdrawal of prosecution. 
  • Instead of offences investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (under Section 321 of CrPC), the new provision provides for offence investigated under any Central Act. 
• Further, this Section also adds a new proviso which was missing earlier. 
  • The new proviso provides that no Court shall allow such withdrawal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the victim in the case. 
  • Thus, it furthers the interest of the victim as they are given an opportunity to be heard before the withdrawal from prosecution. 
• Rest all the provisions are similar to Section 321 of CrPC.   

A Comparative Table of Withdrawal from Prosecution under Section 360 of BNSS and 321 CrPC?  

What are the Important Case Laws? 

• M. Balakrishna Reddy v. Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Deptt (1999) 
  • The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that: 
    • An individual not being the victim of the crime is equally endowed with the right to oppose the withdrawal application from prosecution as is the victim of the crime. 
    • The court further observed that the third person is a part of the community against whom the crime has been committed and thus he or she has a locus standi to oppose the withdrawal. 
• V.S Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishnan Pillai (1995) 
  • The Supreme Court accepted the locus standi of the opposition leader in opposing the withdrawal application from prosecution against a minister since no one else was opposing such an application.