In a significant move with far reaching consequences, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State of Rajasthan vs Chimna Ram in S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 313/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB that was initially reserved on 18/08/2025 and then finally pronounced on 21/08/2025 dismissed a plea that had been moved by the State government for permission to withdraw a criminal case against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Harlal Saharan alias Harlal Singh over forged Class X certificate. We need to note that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Inderjeet Singh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Bhuwan Goyal said that the State government neither submitted the public prosecutor’s report regarding satisfaction for withdrawal of the case nor provided any reasons for the decision. This is exactly what one finds most baffling indeed!

It must be also noted that the case that has been pending since 2019 alleges that Saharan had submitted a forged mark-sheet and certificate of Class X when he filed nomination papers for Zila Parishad polls. It was made indubitably clear by the Rajasthan High Court that such cases cannot be withdrawn merely because he is a member of the legislature. It was also held that permission for withdrawal of prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. The plea was thus dismissed by the Jodhpur High Court. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Bhuwan Goyal for a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Inderjeet Singh and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 read with Section 360 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the State seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1473/2019 titled as “State of Rajasthan vs. Harlal” pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar, District Churu.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench while elaborating on the facts of this leading case envisages in para 2 disclosing that, “The facts in short are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, F.I.R. No. 17/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Churu for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 & 120-B of I.P.C., wherein the allegation was that accused - Harlal Singh submitted his nomination for election on the post of Member, Ward No. 16, Zila Parishad, Churu and along with nomination papers, he submitted mark-sheet and certificate of Class Xth passed and used them as genuine knowing well that same were forged. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused - Harlal. During pendency of criminal case, the State Government constituted a committee, which took a decision to withdraw criminal case pending against the accused, who is present MLA of Constituent Assembly of Churu. Therefore, the State has moved this application seeking permission under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution.”

Interestingly enough, the Division Bench points out in para 8 that, “The question regarding exercise of power by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. and the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court, came to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith & ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 3954, wherein principles on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. have been formulated. The relevant Para 23 of the judgment reads as under:-

“23 The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC can now be formulated:

(i) Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution;

(ii) The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice;

(iii) The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution;

(iv) While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the public prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons;

(v) In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the court exercises a judicial function but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that:

(a) The function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes;

(b) The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law;

(c) The application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given;

(d) The grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice; and

(e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the public prosecutor is duty bound to maintain;

(vi) While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution sub-serves the administration of justice, the court would be justified in scrutinizing the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especially where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated; and

(vii) In a situation where both the trial judge and the revisional court have concurred in granting or refusing consent, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings. The Court may in exercise of the well-settled principles attached to the exercise of this jurisdiction, interfere in a case where there has been a failure of the trial judge or of the High Court to apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhold consent.”” 

While citing relevant case law, the Division Bench states in para 9 that, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Kareem and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 SCC 710 held that an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. could not be allowed only on the ground that the State Government has taken a decision for withdrawing the prosecution and such an order could not be passed after examining facts and circumstances of the case. Further, it has been held that what the court has to see as to whether the application has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. The Court after considering the facts and circumstances of each case has to see whether the application suffers from improprieties or illegalities as would cause a manifest injustice if consent was given.”

While citing yet another relevant case law, the Division Bench observes in para 10 that, “In the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. State through Special Police (Establishment) reported in 1980 3 SCC 435, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that it shall be duty of the Public Prosecutor to inform the grounds for withdrawal to the Court and it shall be duty of the Court to authorize a search of the reason, which prompt the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution. The Court has a responsibility and a stake in the administration of criminal justice and so as to Public Prosecutor, its ‘Ministers of Justice’. Both have a duty to protect the administration of Criminal Justice against possible abuse or misuse by the Executive by resorting to the provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. The independence of the judiciary requires that once the case has travelled to the Court, the Court and its officers alone must have control over the case and decide what is to be done in each case.”

While citing a recent and relevant case law, the Division Bench mentions in para 11 that, “In the case of Shailendra Kumar Srivastva vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2024 INSC 529), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“12. Considering the material on record and the political influence of accused Chhote Singh and the Trial Court’s casual approach towards the accusations against the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly in allowing withdrawal of his prosecution, this court is of the opinion that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation. Contrary to the Trial Court’s view, such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest. This reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people.””

Most forthrightly and briefly stated, the Division Bench propounds in para 12 holding precisely that, “If we examine the record of the case in light of provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ajith & ors. (supra) and the position of law enunciated in the cases of Abdul Kareem and others (supra) as well as Rajendra Kumar (supra), it is well settled that the permission for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be for proper administration of justice and only in the public interest. In the present case, neither the State Government has submitted the report regarding satisfaction of the learned Public Prosecutor nor the grounds/reasons for withdrawing the First Information Report No. 17/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Churu against the accused - Harlal Singh have been assigned in the minutes of the meeting held on 26.11.2024.”

Most significantly, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “It is noteworthy that as per allegations, accused fabricated mark-sheet of Class X, on the basis of which, he submitted nomination papers for contesting the election of Member, Zila Parishad, in which he was declared elected and held the public office and utilized public money. Such matters of a gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused or that he is elected Member of Legislative Assembly. It is pertinent to note at this stage that in the case in hand, after filing of the charge-sheet against the accused - Harlal Singh, cognizance of offences has been taken against him and charges have also been framed. The revision petition filed by accused challenging cognizance order being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2020 (Harlal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.) has been dismissed vide Order dated 11.09.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. So far as submission of learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government that charges framed against accused are defective is concerned, this submission can be raised in the pending revision petition challenging the order framing charge.”

Notably, the Division Bench notes in para 14 that, “It is noteworthy that during the course of arguments, learned Advocate General has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how broad ends of public justice, public order and peace would be met in withdrawing the prosecution nor has he satisfied that present application has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.”

As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 15 that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no case to exercise the power under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the applicant.”

Resultantly and finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 16 that, “Consequently, instant criminal misc. petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”

In conclusion, it is high time and a law must be enacted at the earliest to ban arbitrary withdrawal of criminal cases by the State government which makes a huge terrible mockery of our existing legal system which certainly cannot be allowed to linger on any longer now if the faith of the people in judiciary and democracy is to be retained! It also ostensibly needs no rocket scientist to conclude that Rajasthan High Court has very rightly, robustly and so also rationally refused to allow State to withdraw case against BJP MLA over forged Class X certificate. No denying or disputing it!