Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Quash Criminal Cases Against Former MLA; Holds Withdrawal Requires Mandatory High Court Permission Under Ashwini Upadhyay

Case Name: Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1378
Date of Judgment/Order: 03 December 2025
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant, a former MLA, as the State had never sought mandatory prior permission from the High Court to withdraw prosecution under the directions issued in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021). The Court reaffirmed that withdrawal applications involving MPs/MLAs must be scrutinised by the High Court, applying the principles laid down in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith. Since no such permission was sought despite the Trial Court’s express direction, and the Public Prosecutor’s withdrawal application under Section 321 CrPC was incomplete, quashing could not be granted. The High Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS was therefore valid.

Summary: Multiple FIRs from 2007 were registered against the appellant for offences under the Arms Act and IPC relating to forged documents and misuse of arms licence. Though the State decided in 2014 to withdraw the cases “in public interest” and the Public Prosecutor moved Section 321 CrPC applications, the Trial Court refused to allow withdrawal because mandatory permission from the High Court—required under Ashwini Upadhyay for cases involving legislators—had not been obtained. The Trial Court granted the State 30 days to seek such permission, but the State took no action. The appellant instead filed a series of Section 482 CrPC petitions (or Section 528 BNSS after 2023) to seek quashing of proceedings. The High Court dismissed all petitions. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that since the State had decided to withdraw the cases, prosecution should not continue. The Supreme Court analysed the legislative and judicial framework governing withdrawal of prosecution, citing Ajith, Sheonandan Paswan, and Ram Naresh Pandey, emphasising that courts must ensure prosecutorial independence, bona fides, and public interest before consenting to withdrawal. It held that these safeguards apply even more stringently when prosecution of elected representatives is sought to be withdrawn.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, holding that in the absence of mandatory High Court permission, the Public Prosecutor’s withdrawal applications were legally ineffective and could not form the basis for quashing proceedings. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying charges and preserved the appellant’s right to raise all contentions at the stage of discharge or trial. All pending applications were also disposed of.