Latest JudgementSC & ST Act, 1989

Chhote Lal Kushwaha and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025

The High Court emphasised that judicial scrutiny under Section 321 CrPC is mandatory, especially in cases involving vulnerable sections of society.

Allahabad High Court ·13 December 2025

SC & ST Act, 1989

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

13 December 2025

Judges

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

An FIR was registered pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) CrPC based on a complaint alleging cheating and caste-based abuse.
The complainant alleged that she paid ₹80,000 to the appellant for arranging a visa and employment in Qatar for her husband.
Though a visa was allegedly issued in January 2019, the complainant claimed that it was invalid and unusable, and the money was not refunded despite repeated demands.
It was further alleged that when the complainant demanded her money back in May 2020, she was subjected to caste-indicative abuses and criminal intimidation by the accused and their family members.
After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for offences under the IPC, Disaster Management Act and the SC/ST Act.

Whether a mere expression of intention by the State Government to withdraw prosecution is binding on the Court?
Whether withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC can be allowed without independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor?
Whether withdrawal of prosecution involving serious offences under the SC/ST Act can be permitted without satisfying the test of public interest?

The Court held that withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC is permissible only when the Public Prosecutor acts independently and in good faith.
It was held that a mere communication or intention expressed by the State Government does not bind the Court.
The Court held that in cases involving serious allegations and offences under the SC/ST Act, the judiciary must be extra cautious to ensure that withdrawal is not an attempt to shield the accused.

The judgment reinforces the settled principle that the Public Prosecutor is an officer of the Court, not a mouthpiece of the Government.
The High Court emphasised that judicial scrutiny under Section 321 CrPC is mandatory, especially in cases involving vulnerable sections of society.
The decision safeguards the rights of victims belonging to Scheduled Castes by ensuring that prosecutions are not withdrawn arbitrarily or politically.
The ruling underscores that public interest, fairness of trial and seriousness of allegations must prevail over executive discretion.