The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the State Government’s application seeking withdrawal of a criminal case against BJP MLA Harlal Singh, who stands accused of submitting a forged Class 10 marksheet along with his nomination papers for the 2015 Zila Parishad elections.
A division bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal held that the case involved a “gruesome crime” of forgery and misuse of public office and public money, which did not justify State intervention to withdraw prosecution.
The case dates back to 2015, when Harlal Singh allegedly fabricated and submitted a false Class X certificate in order to contest elections for the Member of Zila Parishad. He was declared elected and went on to hold public office, allegedly misusing public funds.
A complaint was registered in 2019, leading to the filing of a chargesheet. Cognizance was taken, and charges were framed against Singh. His attempt to challenge the cognizance order through a criminal revision petition (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 36/2020, Harlal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) was dismissed by a coordinate bench in 2023.
The State of Rajasthan, through its Advocate General, filed an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking withdrawal of the prosecution. The justification offered was that the Zila Parishad election term had already expired in 2020, the qualification of Class 10 had since been removed, and there was no conclusive evidence to sustain the charges.
The Advocate General further submitted that continuing the prosecution served no “public purpose” and suggested that the MLA’s standing as an elected representative was itself sufficient ground for withdrawal.
The bench was categorical in its refusal. It observed:
“It is noteworthy that as per allegations, the accused fabricated mark-sheet of Class X, on the basis of which he submitted nomination papers for contesting the election of Member, Zila Parishad, in which he was declared elected and held public office and utilized public money. Such matters of a gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused or that he is elected Member of Legislative Assembly.”
The Court noted that once charges were framed, the MLA could not be shielded from trial merely because he later became a legislator.
Defective Charges Argument Rejected
On the submission that charges framed against the accused were defective, the bench clarified that this could be raised in the pending revision petition challenging the order framing charges, but could not be a ground to withdraw the case altogether.
Section 321 CrPC and Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court relied heavily on precedents from the Supreme Court, including:
• Abdul Kareem & Ors. v. State of Karnataka – holding that withdrawal cannot be permitted only because the State so desires; the Court must be satisfied that withdrawal is in good faith and in the interest of public justice.
• Rajendra Kumar v. State through Special Police – reiterating that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to provide cogent reasons for withdrawal and the duty of the Court to scrutinize them.
• K. Ajith & Ors. v. State of Kerala – emphasizing that withdrawal of prosecution must not be mechanical and must only be allowed if it serves the larger public interest and not private or political considerations.
The Court observed that in the present case:
• No report of the Public Prosecutor’s independent satisfaction had been submitted.
• The State Government had not recorded or disclosed reasons justifying withdrawal in the meeting minutes of 26.11.2024.
• The application appeared aimed at thwarting the legal process rather than advancing public justice.
Dismissing the State’s application, the bench stated:
“If we examine the record of the case in light of provisions of Section 321 CrPC coupled with the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is well settled that permission for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be for proper administration of justice and only in the public interest. In the present case, neither the State Government nor the Public Prosecutor has demonstrated such justification.”
Accordingly, the application under Section 321 CrPC was rejected.
Case Title
State of Rajasthan v. Chimna Ram
