'State Can’t Withdraw Cases Without High Court Nod': Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-UP MLA Bal Kumar Patel’s Pleas

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals filed by former Uttar Pradesh MLA Bal Kumar Patel alias Raj Kumar, who sought to quash six criminal cases registered against him in 2007.

Court held that the State’s attempt to withdraw prosecution more than a decade later was legally defective because it failed to obtain mandatory permission from the High Court before doing so, a safeguard specially put in place for cases involving sitting or former MPs and MLAs.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said, "In view of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (2021) this application disclosing the reasons for withdrawal of prosecution given by the Public Prosecutor as also the records of the case should be before the High Court which would exercise its judicial mind and give a reasoned order, granting or denying such permission. As is obvious, this permission is missing in the present case. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be faulted with".

The cases arise from FIRs registered in June 2007, alleging that Patel possessed and used an arms licence in violation of the Arms Act and that he was involved in offences relating to cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. Chargesheets were filed in July 2007 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance shortly thereafter. Although Patel’s arms licence was cancelled in 2009, it was restored by the District Magistrate in 2012. The criminal proceedings, however, continued.

In August 2014, the Uttar Pradesh Government, during the Samajwadi Party rule, issued an order stating that three of the Arms Act cases should be withdrawn in public interest and also in the interest of justice. The Governor granted approval for filing withdrawal applications, and the Public Prosecutor submitted an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial court seeking permission to withdraw prosecution.

The trial court, in 2021, refused to allow withdrawal on the ground that the State had not sought the permission of the High Court as required by the Supreme Court’s earlier direction in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which mandates High Court scrutiny before criminal cases against sitting or former MPs or MLAs can be withdrawn. The trial court gave the State 30 days to obtain the necessary approval, failing which the proceedings would continue. The State did not move the High Court for permission.

Patel thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) seeking quashing of all pending proceedings on the basis of the State’s decision to withdraw the cases. The High Court rejected his petitions, observing that in the absence of the mandatory leave of the High Court, the withdrawal process had no legal effect and the cases had to proceed.

Upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court examined the settled principles governing withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC. The Court reiterated that a Public Prosecutor must independently apply their mind before filing such an application and that courts must be satisfied that withdrawal is sought in good faith and in furtherance of the administration of justice. Court also reaffirmed that in cases involving elected representatives, High Court permission is a mandatory safeguard.

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, Ram Naresh Pandey, and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, noting that the requirement of High Court scrutiny ensures that applications for withdrawal are not used to derail criminal proceedings against public representatives. The bench held that the Public Prosecutor’s 2014 application could not be acted upon because the essential step of approaching the High Court was never taken.

Finding no error in the High Court’s refusal to quash the cases, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and that Patel is free to raise all available legal defences at the appropriate stage, including discharge or trial.

Case Title: Bal KumarPatel @ Raj Kumar Vs State of UP

Judgment Date: December 3, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh