The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a government order directing public prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal cases against individuals, including highly influential persons such as politicians. These cases involve serious charges like rioting and attempted murder. The order is alleged to violate Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Court's Observations on Section 321 CrPC
Section 321 of CrPC states that a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, with the court’s consent, may withdraw from the prosecution before a judgment is pronounced. However, the PIL argues that the government has overstepped its authority by pressuring prosecutors to withdraw cases without proper justification.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Constable's Suspension, Stresses Need for Sleep and Work-Life Balance
A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun, while dictating the order, noted:
"The petitioner’s argument appears justified. The government’s directive to public prosecutors to withdraw cases, despite the Department of Prosecution and Law stating otherwise, seems to violate Section 321 CrPC. Since a strong prima facie case is made, a notice is issued to the state government, returnable by March 17."
Court’s Direction and Petitioner’s Argument
The court directed the state government to submit a response and advised the petitioner that they could present the order to trial courts where these cases are pending. The court also emphasized:
"No court will permit withdrawal once the PIL is pending. If any court allows withdrawal, it will be at its own peril."
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court: Only Sessions Court Can Try Offences Under Chapter IV of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act
Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai, representing the petitioner, argued that the government has no authority to withdraw cases, as per Supreme Court precedents:
"The decision to withdraw a case lies solely with the Public Prosecutor. The state government has no role in this matter under Section 321 CrPC. The Apex Court has affirmed this principle in multiple judgments."
The bench then inquired about the accused individuals, to which Dalwai responded that the cases involved politicians. He further pointed out that the state's Home Department had initially rejected the withdrawal proposal.
When the court asked about the source of the withdrawal decision, Dalwai stated:
"This initiative was taken at the state level, despite the prosecution department’s rejection. The government cannot force the prosecutor to act against legal provisions."
Supreme Court Guidelines Ignored?
The court highlighted that as per the Supreme Court, public prosecutors operate under state instructions. However, Dalwai countered:
"While the state can advise the prosecutor, it cannot compel them to withdraw cases. In this instance, the government’s directive ignores Supreme Court guidelines and involves serious criminal cases, including assault on police and the Hubbali riots."
Cabinet Note and Legal Standing
Dalwai presented a cabinet note to strengthen his argument:
"If the prosecution department has deemed these cases unfit for withdrawal, how can the government still issue such an order?"
Read Also:- Karnataka Government Approves E-mail Service for Court Notices and Summons
The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns and dictated:
"The PIL petitioner, an advocate enrolled with the Karnataka State Bar Council, raises concerns about the government’s directive violating Section 321 CrPC. The state has selected 43 cases for withdrawal from different police stations covering the period between 2008 and 2023, many involving influential personalities. The petitioner seeks to annul the order dated 15-10-2024, issued by the competent authority."
The court recognized that under Section 321 CrPC, the prosecutor must decide case withdrawals on an individual basis, weighing legal justifications. The petitioner, citing a Supreme Court ruling, pointed out that the prosecution department had already deemed these cases ineligible for withdrawal, yet the state government proceeded with the order.
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 3817/2025
