Bureau Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a trial court order dismissing the state government’s application seeking withdrawal of the criminal case against BJP MLA (from Rudauli) Ram Chandra Yadav in connection with the 2012 idol immersion riot incident. Allowing the state’s plea to withdraw the case, a bench of Justice Rajeev Singh categorically said that the public prosecutor’s application before the trial court was filed “in good faith after carefully considering the material on record”.
The order was passed while hearing the petition under section 482 of CrPC filed by MLA Yadav and the review petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Case in Brief According to the original case of the prosecution, on October 24, 2012, there was a traffic jam in front of Rudauli police station due to some tractors carrying idols for immersion. Although the police directed the drivers to move ahead, they did not follow it.
It was claimed that the applicant was a local MLA at that time. He had instructed them to keep the idols there until they reached the police station. Due to this, a huge crowd gathered at the spot. After this, when MLA Yadav reached the spot, he told the police that when the devotees were passing near a mosque, a boy from another community accidentally got drenched with color. This reportedly led to abuse and fighting, during which a statue was also broken.
It was alleged in the FIR that the applicant made inflammatory statements. It demanded that the culprits be punished before the procession could proceed. However, later on his advice the movement of tractors started, but by then about 2,000 to 3,000 people had gathered in the village. After this, on the alleged instigation of the applicant, 250-300 people started moving towards the village where the dispute had taken place with people of another community.
At the outset, the Bench while examining the provisions of Section 321 of CrPC as well as various judgments of the Supreme Court on this provision observed that the ultimate guiding consideration in granting permission to withdraw a case must always be the interest of administration of justice. Citing Supreme Court decisions in cases like Bansi Lal vs. Chandan Lal and Shivanandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar, the Court said that a public prosecutor should exercise his discretion independently and should not interfere with the normal course of justice for any ulterior motive. The application under section 482 of CrPC, the application for withdrawal of the case, as well as the criminal revision petition were admitted.
Comments are closed.