Back
SANJAY KAROL, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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. 1 | |||
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions do not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved," which are typical indicators of negative treatment. Therefore, based on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law at this stage.
Followed/Established Law:
State of Kerala VS K. Ajith - 2021 5 Supreme 140: This case discusses important principles regarding the withdrawal of prosecution by public prosecutors, privileges of MLAs, and the application of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. It appears to set legal standards or clarify existing law, suggesting it may be treated as a precedent or authoritative ruling in these areas.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 1196: This case emphasizes the requirement for the High Court's leave for withdrawal of prosecution against sitting or former M.P./M.L.A. and the importance of continuity of tenure for judicial officers, especially during the pandemic. It likely serves as a guiding or clarifying decision on procedural requirements, indicating its authoritative or followable status.
Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment:
BAL KUMAR PATEL vs STATE OF U.P - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10591: The description provides details of a specific case involving the Arms Act and mentions the case was from the High Court “as mandated by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v.” However, there is no explicit indication of how this case has been treated in subsequent judgments—whether it has been followed, distinguished, or criticized. Without further context, its treatment remains uncertain.
BAL KUMAR PATEL vs STATE OF U.P - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10591: The treatment of this case is unclear based on the provided description. No information about subsequent judicial treatment, overruling, or criticism is available, making it difficult to categorize definitively.
(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 t....
The duty of the Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion with utmost care and circumspection, and not to act under pressure from higher authorities.
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.
Public Prosecutor must provide reasons for withdrawing prosecution, ensuring it serves public interest and justice, particularly in cases with significant criminal histories.
The withdrawal of criminal prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. requires the Public Prosecutor to act independently in the interest of justice, and while the court has the final authority to consent....
The Public Prosecutor's discretion to withdraw from the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C must be exercised in the interest of justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
