Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1993

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No (s). 5196 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 6421 of 2025), Criminal Appeal No. 5197 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 13168 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5198 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 13090 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal No. 5199 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 13144 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5200 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 13142 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5201 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 13161 of 2025
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv. Mr. B.P Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Withdrawal from prosecution – Public Prosecutor who has duty to assist Court with a fairly considered view on the case, in his application and in interest of justice should disclose all reasons that weighed with them to put forward this application to Court.
(2) Reasons are soul of a judicial as well as administrative function.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 321 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 360 and 528] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468 and 71 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 27 and 30 – Withdrawal from prosecution – Cheating, forgery and protecting offender from punishment – Dismissal of quashing petition by High Court – Public Prosecutor who has duty to assist Court with a fairly considered view on the case, in his application and in interest of justice should disclose all reasons that weighed with them to put forward this application to Court – Reasons are soul of a judicial as well as administrative function – Application disclosing reasons for withdrawal of prosecution given by Public Prosecutor as also records of case should be before High Court which would exercise its judicial mind and give a reasoned order, granting or denying such permission – Such permission is missing in present case – Impugned judgment cannot be faulted with – High Court has rightly dismissed petition for quashing. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant seeks leave to appeals under Article 136 of Constitution of India to challenge following judgments and orders whereby High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and quash criminal proceeding against him.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J,

Leave Granted.

2. The appellant seeks leave to appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to challenge the following judgments and orders whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’]/528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023²[Hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”] and quash the criminal proceeding against him, on the common ground that the permission as required under law, to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former Members of Parliament or Members of Legislative Assembly, has not been sought by the State from the High Court as mandated by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2021(20) SCC 599.

Sr. No.	Details of FIR	Sections	Date of impugned judgment/order	Particulars of impugned judgment/order
1	656/07 dt. 12.06.2007	u/s 25,27,30 Arms Act	07.04.2025	Application u/s 482 No. 2959 of 2025
2	652/07 dt. 12.06.2007	u/s 420,467,468,71 IPC	28.05.2025	Application u/s 482 No. 4560 of 2025
3	653/07 dt. 12.06.2007	u/s 420,467,468,71 IPC	30.05.2025	Application u/s 482 No. 4643 of 2025
4	654/07 dt. 12.06.2007	u/s 25,27,30 Arms Act	26.05.2025	Application u/s 482 No. 4420 of 2025
5	655/07 dt. 12.06.2007	u/s 25,27,30 Arms Act	27.05.2025	Application u/s 482 No. 4474 of 2025
6	728/07 dt. 20.06.2007	u/s 420,467,468,71 IPC	30.05.2025	Application u/s 482 No. 4724 of 2025

3. Since the question involved in these appeals is a question of law, it may suffice to note by way of background facts that the appellant was the holder of an arms license issued by the competent authority of the State, but the common FIR from which all these proceedings arise came to be filed against him on 12th June 2007, with the allegation that in holding the arms license, he had acted against the provisions of the Arms Act 1959. It is also required to be noted as a matter of subsequent development that the District Magistrate, Raebareli had vide order dated 11th July 2012 restored the Arms license which originally stood cancelled by order dated 24th December 2009 passed in Case No.35/2012/113/26/09 under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

4. The FIR was processed as per law and the chargesheet was filed on 25th July 2007. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli took cognizance of the chargesheet vide order dated 10th August 2007. By Government Order bearing particulars No.1264/WC/Seven-Nyay-5-2014-842-WC/2012, the Special Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the District Magistrate Raebareli on 6th August 2014 stating that the Government had decided to withdraw Case Crime No.654,655 and 656 of 2007 against the Appellant, in public interest and also in the interest of justice. The same is extracted below:

“No.1264/WC/Seven-Nyay-5-2014-842 WC/2012

From,

J.P. Sigh II

Special Secretary

Government of Uttar Pradesh.

To,

District Magistrate Raebareli.

Law Section-5 (Criminal)Lucknow, dated 06th August, 2014

Subject: Regarding withdrawal of prosecution in Case Crime No. 654/2007, 655/2007, 656/2007 u/s 25, 27,

30 of Arms Act, P.S. Raebareli, District- Raibareli, titled as State Vs. Bal Kumar @ Raj Kumar Pate etc.

Sir,

In reference to your above subject Letter No.1490/Nyay. Saha. Pratham/12, dated 26.10.2012, I have been directed to say that after due consideration on the facts of cases, Reports/ Letters available on record, the Government has decided to withdraw the aforesaid cases in public interest as well as in the interest of justice.

2. I have also been direc