The Public Prosecutor must independently exercise discretion in case withdrawals under Section 321 CrPC, free from governmental or political influence, to uphold the rule of law.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, C.J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Venkatesh P. Dalwai for the petitioner, learned Advocate General Mr. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty along with learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar and learned advocate Mr. D. Manthan for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The public interest petitioner herein is an advocate enrolled before the Karnataka State Bar Council, who, by filing the present public interest petition, seeks to raise an issue about the decision on part of the respondent-State Government in directing and thereby compelling the Public Prosecutors to withdraw the criminal cases in breach of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.1 The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Order No.HD 129 MHB 2024 of Government of Karnataka dated 15.10.2024 which was passed by the competent authority, Home Department directing public prosecutors under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to withdraw the cases filed in various police stations in the State of Karnataka.

3. It is pleaded that the public interest petition is filed for the benefit of the society at large especially in the interest of victims of crime, the cases in respect of whom are sought to be withdrawn illegally by the prosecution. It is stated that since such persons are scattered in the State and are uninformed about the directions in the impugned order for mass withdrawal of cases by the prosecution, they are unable to have ready and easy access to the court. The petitioner has stated that in that light and in view that a serious public interest concern informs the subject matter, the petition is filed.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner inter alia that several criminal cases have been registered with different police stations across the State between the years 2008 to 2023. Out of these cases, it was submitted, 43 cases are selected to be withdrawn from the prosecution. It is the allegation that these 43 cases involve highly influential personalities such as former ministers, Members of Legislative Assemblies, Presidents and other persons holding the high positions.

3.2 It is further stated that in Sudha Katwa vs. State of Karnataka which was Writ Petition No. 12755 of 2020, directions were sought to follow mandate of Section 321 , CrPC., wherein interim order was passed on 13.07.2022 that the Government Order dated 13.08.2020 by which the initiation of withdrawal of cases from prosecution in 61 matters were directed would not apply for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former members of the Legislative Assembly or the Parliament as the case may be.

3.3 It is stated that now, despite the above interim order, about 43 new set of cases are proposed to be withdrawn from the prosecution. It has stated that this has happened pursuant to the recommendation by the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet meetings held on different dates including on 15.09.2024. The petitioner has given out that the criminal cases which are filed and sought to be withdrawn are relating to serious offences, the details of which is given in paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5 of the petition. It is averred that the in the cases which are directed to be withdrawn, many, if not all accused are influential persons.

3.4 The averments are specially made by the petitioner. Their opinions were obtained from various departments including respondent No.2-the Department of Prosecutions and Government Litigations as well as from Police Department-Respondent No.4 as to whether the cases could be categorized for withdrawal and could be withdrawn. It is averred that these Departments were of the firm opinion that the cases proposed for withdrawal are not fit for withdrawal. It is stated that when the competent authorities and the departments concerned have given opinion against the withdrawal, the withdrawal is against public interest and actuated by malice and extraneous considerations. It is alleged that rule of law is given go by.

3.5 It is stated by the petition