Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pasupuleti Ganesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 March, 2025
APHC010262522020 Bench Sr.No:-7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3483]
AT AMARAVATI
WP(PIL) NO: 250 of 2020
Pasupuleti Ganesh ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents
**********
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. J.V.Phaniduth Advocates for Respondents : Advocate General CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 26th March 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The present petition has been filed in public interest challenging G.O.Rt.No.776, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 12.08.2020, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the Government decided to withdraw the prosecution against the accused who are facing trial for offences under Sections 324, 341, 353, 332, 427, 120(B), 143, 147, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.
2. The FIRs are registered in connection with an incident when the accused along with the mob attacked the Police Station having been infuriated in regard to the incident where a minor girl belonging to a particular community was allegedly sexually assaulted. 2
HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.250 of 2020
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the prosecution lodged against the accused could not have been withdrawn inasmuch as the complaints were lodged by the victims who were none other than the Police Officials, who had got injured in the aforementioned incident.
4. By virtue of an interim order, dated 24.09.2020, the Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the impugned G.O. and further the respondents were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the FIRs under which the accused had been booked.
5. On a perusal of the G.O. impugned, it can be seen that instructions have been issued to the Director General of Police by the Government to issue further instructions to the Assistant Public Prosecutors / Station House Officers concerned to file a petition under Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the concerned Courts in regard to the crimes in question.
6. The stand of the respondents is that different crimes have been registered against the offenders, who had formed an unlawful assembly at old Guntur Police Station, who committed various offences under Sections 324, 341, 353, 332, 427, 120(B), 143, 147, 506 r/w 149 IPC. It is stated that majority of the people, who gathered at the Police Station, were charged with emotions and anger and few of them attacked the Police Station demanding for handing over the accused who was detained in the Police Station and had 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.250 of 2020 been accused of committing heinous offence of rape committed on a ten year old girl belonging to a particular community.
7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State would urge that the guidelines have already been prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith and others1 on the issue of withdrawal of prosecutions under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph No.25 of the judgment in the case of K. Ajith is reproduced hereunder:
"25. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. can now be formulated:
25.1. 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;
25.2. 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;
25.3. The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution;
25.4. 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;
25.5. 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;
1 (2021) 17 SCC 318 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.250 of 2020
(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;
........"
8. It was urged that notwithstanding the issuance of G.O. impugned, it would still be open to the Public Prosecutor to formulate an independent opinion before consent of the Court was sought to withdraw the prosecution and further that even the Court had to satisfy itself fully before permitting such a withdrawal.
9. It was thus urged that there was a two layered mechanism envisaged which would ensure that only such cases of prosecution be withdrawn which would be otherwise found to have been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not made with a view to thwart or stifle the process of law.
10. It is stated that the aforementioned views were subsequently reiterated in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and another2, in its directions, dated 10.08.2021.
2 (2021) 20 SCC 599 5 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.250 of 2020
11. In view of the ratio of the aforementioned judgments and orders which have been discussed and reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that it is not mandatory for the Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutor to per se act on the directions of the Government and that before initiating any action for withdrawal of prosecution, they have to formulate an independent opinion before proceeding to seek the concerned Court to withdraw from the prosecution. Such a stage, it appears, has not at all reached in the matter, as stated by the learned Advocate General, as the Public Prosecutor has not formulated any independent opinion based upon the G.O. impugned.
12. Be that as it may, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Public Prosecutor to strictly proceed in accordance with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the cases of State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith and others and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and another. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 6 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.250 of 2020 61 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.(PIL) No.250 of 2020 Dt: 26.03.2025 kbs