‘Won't withdraw criminal cases against influential individuals till April 8’

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The Karnataka government informed the High Court on Monday that it will not withdraw prosecution in any pending criminal cases involving influential individuals until April 8. The assurance was given during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the withdrawal of 43 cases under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Section 321 CrPC allows a public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor, with the court's consent, to withdraw prosecution at any stage before a judgment is delivered. The PIL filed by Girish Bharadwaj questioned a government order directing public prosecutors to withdraw cases, some of which involve serious charges like rioting and attempted murder. The petition argued that the decision violates legal provisions and benefits politically influential figures. A division bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind recorded the state government's assurance that no cases would be withdrawn until the next hearing.

Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar made this statement in court. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 8. During the proceedings, the government advocate submitted a memo detailing cases where prosecution has either been withdrawn or is pending. The counsel sought additional time to present a detailed argument, citing the need to review records received on the same day. Petitioner's counsel, Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai, pointed out that the Advocate General was expected to make submissions in the case. He insisted that if the government sought more time, it should assure the court that no further withdrawals would take place in the meantime, as 21 cases were still pending. The government counsel subsequently gave an oral undertaking to this effect.

The PIL highlights that multiple cases were registered across various police stations between 2008 and 2023, out of which 43 were identified for withdrawal. The petitioner has sought the quashing of an order dated October 15, 2024, issued by the competent authority. During an earlier hearing, the HC had issued a notice to the state government, remarking that the petitioner had made a prima facie case. The bench observed that the government appeared to have exerted undue influence on public prosecutors, directing them to withdraw cases in violation of Section 321 CrPC. It noted that even when the Department of Prosecution and Law had deemed the cases unfit for withdrawal, the state government proceeded with the decision, exceeding its authority.

The court had issued a notice returnable by March 17. Advocate Dalwai previously argued that the government had no role in deciding case withdrawals under Section 321 CrPC. He contended that the discretion rests solely with the public prosecutor, as reaffirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings.