Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Chimna Ram on 21 August, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 313/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Petitioner
Versus
Chimna Ram S/o Rooparam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dhadar,
Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil And Dist. Churu.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Tanay Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Singh, Mr. Jassa Ram
and Mr. Jai Kishan through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
ORDER RESERVED ON : 18/08/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21/08/2025
PER BHUWAN GOYAL J. :
1. 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.
2. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
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.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General has
submitted that though, charge-sheet in the instant case was filed
against accused - Harlal Singh for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 471, 120-B & 193 of I.P.C. but from the evidence
produced on record, no sufficient material is available on record
against him. He has argued that charges were also wrongly
framed against him because there is no evidence on record to
establish that accused fabricated documents in question in any
manner.
4.1 Learned Advocate General has further submitted that in
order to frame charge of Section 120-B of I.P.C., existence of two
or more accused persons is necessary. But in the case in hand,
charge-sheet has been filed only against accused - Harlal Singh,
therefore, charge framed under Section 120-B of I.P.C. is
defective.
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
4.2 Learned Advocate General has further submitted Section 193
of I.P.C. deals with offences relating to false evidence and
separate procedure has been prescribed under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of I.P.C. for prosecuting such
offences and said procedure has not been followed in the case in
hand because F.I.R. was got registered by a stranger person after
about four years of commission of alleged offences.
4.3 Learned Advocate General has also argued that as per
provisions of Section 146 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, Election Officer/Public Servant is empowered to file the
complaint but in the present case, complaint was filed by a private
person which was not maintainable.
4.4 Learned Advocate General has also submitted that accused
Harlal Singh had contested election of Member, Zila Parishad in the
year 2015, the term of office of which expired in the year 2020.
He has also contended that qualification of Class Xth passed has
also now been removed. Thus, no ends of public justice would be
met with proceeding with the prosecution.
4.5 Learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar
Srivastava vs. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318 to
contend that cognizance of offence punishable under Section 193
I.P.C. on the basis of a private complaint is impermissible.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant
through VC has submitted that accused - Harlal Singh had earlier
filed a misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of
the F.I.R., which was withdrawn by him. He has also submitted
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
that the revision petition filed by accused challenging cognizance
of offences taken against him was dismissed and the revision
petition filed by him challenging charges framed against him is
pending adjudication. He has also submitted that no
reasoning/opinion was assigned by the State Level Committee for
making recommendations for withdrawal of prosecution.
Therefore, he has prayed that permission to withdraw the
prosecution may be rejected.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar and have gone through material available on
record.
7. It would be fruitful to refer to Section 321 of Cr.P.C., which is
reproduced as under :-
"321. Withdrawal from prosecution. The
Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in
charge of a case may, with the consent of the
Court, at any time before the judgment is
pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of
any person either generally or in respect of any
one or more of the offences for which he is tried;
and, upon such withdrawal,-
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed,
the accused shall be discharged in respect of such
offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed,
or when under this Code no charge is required, he
shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or
offences:
Provided that where such offence-
(i) was against any law relating to a matter to
which the executive power of the Union extends,
or
(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ), or
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction
of, or damage to, any property belonging to the
Central Government, or
(iv) was committed by a person in the service of
the Central Government while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case
has not been appointed by the Central
Government, he shall not, unless he has been
permitted by the Central Government to do so,
move the Court for its consent to withdraw from
the prosecution and the Court shall, before
according consent, direct the Prosecutor to
produce before it the permission granted by the
Central Government to withdraw from the
prosecution."
8. 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;
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
(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 subserves 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
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."
9. 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.
10. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
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 resort 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 decided what is to be done in
each case.
11. 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."
12. 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 annunciated in the cases of Abdul Kareem and
others (supra) as well as Rajendra Kumar (supra), it is well settled
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
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. The relevant portion
of minutes of the meeting dated 26.11.2024 reads as under :-
"1- çFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 17@2019 iqfyl Fkkuk
dksrokyh ftyk pq:
çdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl çdkj ls gS fd
ifjoknh fpeukjke iq= :ikjke tkV fuoklh <k<j ftyk
pw: us ,d bLrxklk Jheku~ lhts,e pw: ds ;gka bl
vk'k; dk ntZ djok;k gS fd vfHk;qDr gjyky flag iq=
eksguyky tkV us tuojh 2015 esa ftyk ifj"kn pw: ds
fuokZpu {ks= la[;k 16 ls ftyk ifj"kn pw: ds lnL;
ds fuokZpu gsrq fjVfuaZx v‚fQlj ftyk ifj"kn lnL;
fuokZpu ¼ftyk dysDVj ,oa ftyk eftLVªsV½ pw: ds
le{k uksfeus'ku QkeZ is'k fd;kA ftlesa mlus en la[;k
09 esa viuh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 10 oha ikl djuk fy[kkA
ftlds fy, mlus ,d 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k lkFk esa
çek.k Lo:i vius uke dh vadrkfydk gkbZ Ldwy
ijh{kk 2010 vuqØekad 1494335 mÙkjk[k.M fo|ky;
f'k{kk ifj"kn fo|ky; ,p-,-,l-,l Ldwy&_f"kds'k
mÙkjk[k.M fo|ky; f'k{kk ifj"kn gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk
mÙkh.kZ djus dk çek.k&i= vius Lo;a ds gLrk{kjksa ls
çekf.kr dj is'k fd;kA ifjoknh us lwpuk ds vf/kdkj
ds rgr lwpuk ekaxh rks yksd lwpuk vf/kdkjh mÙkjk[kaM
fo|ky; ifj"kn jkeuxj uSuhrky us lwfpr fd;k dh
gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk 2010 esa vuqØekad 1494336 fdlh Hkh
fo|kFkhZ dks vkoafVr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj gkWy ,sUty
flfu;j lSdsUMjh Ldwy +_f"kds'k ds uke ls dksbZ
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
fo|ky; iathd`r ugha gS] bl çdkj vfHk;qDr us
dwVjfpr vadrkfydk rS;kj dh gS rFkk mls Ny ds
ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx esa fy;k gSA iqfyl us vuqla/kku
mijkUr /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 193] 120ch Hkk-na-la-
esa vkjksi&i= U;k;ky; esa çLrqr fd;k x;kA
jkT; Lrjh; lfefr us çdj.k ds rF;ksa ij euu
fd;k ,oa mDr çdj.k esa vfHk;qDr Jh gjrky flag
orZeku esa fo/kk;d pq: gSA iwoZ@orZeku lkaln ,oa
fo/kkueaMy ds lnL;ksa ds fo:) çdj.kksa dks ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls gh okil fy;k tk ldrk
gSA lfefr ;g vuq'ka"kk djrh gS fd ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; esa çkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k tkus dk fu.kZ; mPp
Lrj ls fy;k tkosA"
13. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36883-SB] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-313/2025]
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.
14. 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 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 of stifle the
process of law.
15. 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.
16. Consequently, instant criminal misc. petition being devoid of
any merit is hereby dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
Inder/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
