Introduction
The primary object of criminal justice system is to ensure that the trial must be fair. Generally, once the cognizance has been taken, the case proceeds and after full trial, either results in conviction or acquittal. Before that, discharge of the accused can also be made in some circumstances as per Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure in summons case.
There are circumstances where criminal cases can be disposed of without trial:
- When criminal proceedings is barred by limitation under section 468 of Cr.P.C.
- When offences are Compounded as per Section 320
- When the charge is groundless the accused is Discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
- When Conditional Pardon is given to an accomplice under Section 306 and 307 ofPC
- For absence or non-appearance of complainant at the discretion of the magistrate under Section 249 of Cr.PC
- When case is withdrawn by complainant (Section 257 of PC)
- Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence as per Section 300 of Cr.PC
- When court stops the proceedings in certain cases empowered under Section 258 of Cr.PC
- When withdrawn from prosecution a per Section 321 Cr.PC
How far Section 321 of CrPC is utilized by the State of Karnataka?
According to this section only the public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor who is in charge of a particular case can apply for withdrawal from prosecution in the respective case. Upon such withdrawal, if it is made before a charge has been framed then the accused shall be discharged of such offence and 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. Also, a public prosecutor cannot apply for withdrawal from prosecution in case of private complainant.
Section 321 provides no particular grounds on which withdrawal from prosecution can be filed by the Public Prosecutor, but it has been established as an essential inherent condition by the Supreme Court that withdrawal should be in the interest of administration of justice. It is the responsibility of the respective court, in which the withdrawal application has been filed, to scrutinize the reasons behind the withdrawal and check that withdrawal is not sought on reasons extraneous or against the interest of justice. Furthermore, it is the duty of the court to see that the Public prosecutor actually applies his or her free mind and not just act as mere mechanical agent of the State government.[1]
The Supreme Court has barred states from dropping cases against MLAs and MPs without the respective high court’s clearance since August, 2021. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice SR Krishna Kumar issued the order. ‘The statistical information furnished by the Registrar (Review & Statistics) does not appear to be proper and sufficient, particularly relating to withdrawal of cases by the state government exercising power under Section 321 of CrPC or with respect to the cases where the application under Section 321 of CrPC is pending,’ the bench observed. The Karnataka High Court also directed the Registrar General to furnish fresh information regarding the cases in which the state government has filed application under Section 321 of CrPC that are still pending disposal before the Special Courts on or after 16.09.2020.
The Karnataka government submitted that only four cases against MLAs and MPs have been withdrawn in the state since September 2020, the Karnataka High Court sought details of all applications filed for similar relief. A case against Mysuru Madikeri BJP MP Prathap Simha, booked for causing voluntary hurt and obstructing a public servant, was withdrawn on October 19, 2020. Also, the court was informed that three cases for wrongful restraint and assault of a public servant against Honnali BJP legislator MP Renukacharya were withdrawn on November 19, 2020.
In August 2021, the Karnataka High Court had asked the state government to provide details of cases dropped against elected representatives after September 16, 2020. The court was dealing with a petition against an order of the state government to withdraw 62 cases against 312 individuals. Subsequently, as many as 21 cases were dropped by courts in Karnataka between October 2020 and December 2020, benefiting 312 individuals.
The BJP led Karnataka government had recommended the withdrawal of 46 cases of violence, mostly against BJP leaders, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders and several right- wing organisations, accused of being directly involved in violence that erupted around the birth anniversary celebrations of the Mysore ruler Tipu Sultan. These cases were registered across Karnataka between 2014 and 2018 when Congress government was in power.
The recommendation was opposed by both the police and the state law department. Persons were accused of direct involvement in violence, fanning communal tension in the state, making inflammatory speeches and derogatory comments on Tipu Sultan and ridiculing the then state chief minister Siddaramaiah in their speeches. Most of these cases were non- bailable and attract punishment over seven years.
The BJP government had recommended withdrawal of these cases under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. The recommendations, were opposed by Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), Director-Department of prosecution and Government litigation and Law department. While the DG & IGP has opined that recommendation are ‘routine procedures’ these cases “cannot be withdrawn”, both the department of prosecution and law have observed that these are “not a fit case to withdraw”.
In a private complaint Shankar Sheth and Shivalingayya Hiremth from dharwad alleged that siddharamaiah had made malicious statements that ‘CMs who are lingayats spoilt the state due to their corrupt nature’, while there is not an iota of truth in his statement as no court has convicted or held any lingayat CM of Karnataka guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A special court for cases filed against incumbent and former MPs and MLAs has dismissed a defamation suit filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over his comments on Lingayat chief ministers. Court held that the statement was clearly not made to entire community or targetting members of the lingayat community, but only in respect of the chief minister was in position as on date of statement. Judge J Preeth said ‘complainants have not suffered any legal injury nor has their reputation been lowered by the comments. Since they are not the aggrieved persons, taking cognizance of the offence and proceeding will amount to abuse of legal process.’
Conclusion
The present Karnataka government led by the INC would utilize its power as per section 321 of CrPC. As any other government would do to withdraw cases or drop charges against individuals. The present Chief Minister’s case mentioned in this article would have been withdrawn under Section 321 if it was not a private complaint, therefore it had to be decided by the court. The previous government has utilized its power to withdraw 62 cases within two months benefitting around 312 individuals. It is assumed that the present government would withdraw more cases under Section 321, benefiting more individuals. Disposal of a case without trial not only saves time but also in certain cases helps in restoring harmony that cannot be achieved by conducting a full fledge trial. While in most of the cases this power is used blatantly the government in their favour, it is ever ambiguous as to the fairness of withdrawal of cases by the government.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- K R Bhuvanashri
[1] Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288.
