Facts
This matter is a suo motu writ petition monitored by the High Court regarding the progress of criminal trials involving sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs)
Source reference: p. 1On 17/03/2026, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted a status report detailing pending cases across several districts, including Balodabazar, Janjgir-Champa, Kabirdham, Raipur, and Rajnandgaon
Source reference: pp. 1-6Specifically, the State filed I.A. No. 1/2026 seeking leave to withdraw prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State v. Vijay Sharma 10 Others), involving a sitting MLA
Source reference: p. 6Furthermore, three references (PUDs) were received from Gariyaband district courts seeking guidance on State applications for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. in cases involving Rohit Sahu, Damrudhar Pujari, and Govardhan Manjhi
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the State should be granted leave to withdraw from the prosecution of criminal cases pending against sitting or former MPs/MLAs
Source reference: p. 72. Whether the applications for withdrawal were made in good faith and in compliance with the judicial guidelines governing the exercise of power under Section 321 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 11Law Applied
The Court applied Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which permits withdrawal from prosecution with the consent of the court
Source reference: p. 7It strictly followed the Supreme Court’s mandate in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 599, which stipulates that no prosecution against sitting or former MPs/MLAs shall be withdrawn without the prior leave of the High Court
Source reference: p. 7, 10It further relied on the principles in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021) 17 SCC 318, establishing that the Public Prosecutor must exercise an independent mind and the withdrawal must serve the broad ends of public justice rather than extraneous political considerations
Source reference: pp. 8-10Reasoning
The High Court scrutinized the State's application and the lower court references against the benchmarks established by the Apex Court.
Source reference: no citationThe Court noted the Advocate General’s submission that the withdrawal application for Vijay Sharma was made in good faith after an independent application of mind by competent authorities
Source reference: p. 6The Bench observed that the High Court’s role at this stage is to grant "leave" to seek withdrawal, which does not bypass the trial court's duty to evaluate the merits
Source reference: p. 11Upon perusal of the records, the Court was satisfied that the proposals did not appear mala fide or intended to stifle the process of law
Source reference: p. 11However, the High Court clarified that while leave is granted, the ultimate judicial function of consenting to the withdrawal under Section 321 Cr.P.C. remains with the respective trial Magistrates, who must ensure the withdrawal is not for illegitimate reasons
Source reference: pp. 11-12Holding
The High Court granted leave to the State to withdraw from prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (Kabirdham) and the three Gariyaband cases (Nos. 391/2024, 666/2025, and 667/2025)
The Court ordered the concerned trial Magistrates to independently decide the withdrawal applications on their own merits, adhering to the guidelines in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya
Source reference: p. 11The trial courts were directed to proceed in accordance with law and submit appropriate consequential orders
Source reference: p. 12The matter was listed for further status updates on 16/04/2026
Source reference: p. 12Original Court PDF
IN RE. DESIGNATED COURTS FOR MPS/MLASvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in