High Court leave and independent judicial scrutiny are mandatory for withdrawing criminal prosecutions against legislators.

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)

On 17/03/2026, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted a status report detailing pending cases across several districts, including Balodabazar, Janjgir-Champa, Kabirdham, Raipur, and Rajnandgaon

Specifically, 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

Furthermore, 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

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

It 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v. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 599, which stipulates that no prosecution against sitting or former MPs/MLAs shall be withdrawn without the prior leave of the High Court

It 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

The High Court scrutinized the State's application and the lower court references against the benchmarks established by the Apex Court.

The 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

The 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

Upon perusal of the records, the Court was satisfied that the proposals did not appear mala fide or intended to stifle the process of law

However, 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

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

The trial courts were directed to proceed in accordance with law and submit appropriate consequential orders

The matter was listed for further status updates on 16/04/2026