Withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. requires court's consent, ensuring genuine public interest and good faith without disturbance to public order.

ORDER :

1. All these misc. petitions are being decided by this common order since identical question of law and facts are involved in all these misc. petitions, seeking leave of this Court for withdrawal of the case pending before the Trial Court, pursuant to the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India and Anr. 2021 (20) SCC 599 , as the same pertain to withdrawal of prosecution in the matters involving former/sitting MLA.

2. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General submits that the petty nature of allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the respective FIRs registered against them, as the respondents were raising peaceful protest for the benefit of the public at large. Counsel submits that considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Powered Committee of the Government of Rajasthan has taken a decision to withdraw the prosecution qua the respondents herein, vide orders dated 07.07.2025 and 02.07.2025 respectively. Counsel submits that now, the State is not willing to prosecute the respondents in FIR No.227/2011 registered with the Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural for the offences under Sections 143 and 283 IPC, and in the FIR No.95/2021 and 340/2021 registered with the Police Station Ramganj Mandi, Distrcit Kota for the offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 IPC and Section 5 of the Rajasthan Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020. Learned counsel submits that public agitation was initiated by the respondents in the interest of the public at large, on several public issues relating to the demand of water and demand of justice from the administration for taking action agianst the accused persons. Counsel submits that the agitation was for public causes, wherein the respondents did not have any personal interest. Counsel submits that considering the overall circumstances, a decision was taken by the State Government to withdraw all the FIRs along with the charge-sheet submitted against the respondents before the competent Court of law. Counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) has formulated certain guidelines with regard to withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and in para No.8 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically held that in a criminal case registred against a sitting or former MP and MLA, there shall be no withdrawal of prosecution without seeking leave from the concerned jurisdictional High Court. Counsel submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra), the instant misc. petitions have been submitted seeking leave of this Court for withdrawal of prosecution in favour of the accused respondents, who are sitting or former MLAs.

3. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection in case, the instant Mis. Petitions are allowed and leave, as prayed for, is granted. They jointly submit that the accused respondents are public representatives and they are under legal and social obligation to raise demands on behalf of the public before the State authoritie