Karnataka High Court issues notice to govt, seeks response to PIL questioning withdrawal of 43 cases against VIPs

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court issues notice to the state government to a PIL petition questioning the decision to withdraw 43 cases involving former ministers, former MLAs and other influential persons.

A division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun directed the Department of Prosecution and Government Litigations as well as the Law Department to file a response by March 17.

The petition was filed by Girish Bharadwaj, a Bengaluru-based advocate. He challenged the October 15, 2024, notification which directed the public prosecutors to withdraw 43 cases filed in various police stations.

He stated that highly influential personalities such as former ministers, MLAs and presidents of influential organisations are involved in these 43 cases. The cases were withdrawn under CrPC Section 321.

The petitioner said that under CrPC Section 321, the public prosecutor has to apply his mind to the facts of the case independently without being subject to any outside influence.

The petitioner's advocate submitted that on the date of the issuance of the government order, CrPC stood repealed as Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita had come into force from July 1, 2024, and hence the government order is invalid. It was further submitted that the order was issued in spite of the opinion by the prosecution and law departments that the cases were not fit for withdrawal.

The bench was informed that as per Supreme Court decision, withdrawal of prosecution is an executive function of the public prosecutor and it is his ultimate decision to withdraw.

The Supreme Court noted that the public prosecutor cannot act like a post box which acts in the diktat of the state government, the advocate said.

"Advocate for the petitioner has prima facie justified that the government has been exerting its dictate to the prosecutors in ordering them the withdrawal of the cases from prosecution, which is in clear breach of Section 321 of CrPC as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

"It was submitted that when the departments of prosecution and law refused in their opinion stating that the cases are not fit for withdrawal, the state government has exceeded its authority, to say the least in passing the impugned order. As a strong prima facie case is made out, there shall be notice to the respondents returnable on Mach 17," the bench noted.