Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court on Friday while refusing to interfere with the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur rejecting the application moved by the State Government to withdraw the rape case against Swami Chainmayana, observed that the entire process of withdrawing the prosecution was well short of the standards set up the Apex Court. 

The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed, "In the impugned order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur has pointed out that this is the case relating to the rape and exploiting the chastity of a woman and while filing an application under section 321 Cr.P.C., the Senior Prosecuting Officer at no stage, has pointed out how the withdrawal of this prosecution would subserve the objective of public interest or interest of justice".

Court also took note of the lack of a cogent and tangible reason behind the State's application for withdrawal of prosecution and said, "Mere mentioning of the phrase ' independent mind' casts serious doubt as to whether the concerned Senior Prosecution Officer is an officer of the court or an agent to the executive".

Court observed that the Senior Prosecuting Officer had not even mentioned on which material he had applied his own independent mind and had drawn the conclusion that the withdrawal of the prosecution would meet ends of justice or in the interest of the public at large.

Accordingly, while referring to Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India where the Top Court issued guidelines regarding interpretations of section 321 CrPC, court held, "The Court is of the considered opinion that the entire process of withdrawing the prosecution against the applicant is well short off the standards set up by Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard and thus do not call for any interference from this Court."

Moreover, court refused to adjudicate upon the counter affidavit filed by the victim in the case wherein she stated that she is in the agreement with the decision taken by the State Government. Court observed that she, later on, filed an objection to the affidavit. In light of the same, court opined that "it could be clearly said that she had been won over by the applicant".

However, while stating that the application of law should be one and uniform to all top to bottom, Court took a humanitarian approach and directed that if Chinmayanand surrenders before the concerned Magistrate on or before 30th October 2022 and applies for bail, his bail application shall be adjudicated and decided strictly in accordance with law. Till then, court ordered that "no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case".

With the aforesaid judgment and order, court disposed of the instant application. 

Court had reserved the judgment on July 29, 2022, in the instant plea moved by Chinmayanand which he moved in 2018 after the trial court rejected the application filed by the State Government under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution against him. 

Challenging the order of the lower court, the charge sheet and the entire proceeding in the case, Chinmayanand's counsel had argued that the Magistrate rejected the public prosecutor's application on consideration of extraneous material contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Chinmayananda is accused of sexually exploiting a law student of a college of which he was the director. He was granted bail six months after his arrest in August 2019 by the Allahabad high court on February 3, 2020. 

The case had triggered nationwide outrage and the Top Court had taken suo moto cognizance of the issue and had directed for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. 

The SIT has filed the charge sheet in the case which is pending before the CJM court, Shahjahanpur. 

Case Title: Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati v. State Of U.P. And Anr