TOPIC: DRAFTING OF WITHDRAWAL

APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES

SUBJECT: DPC
FACULTY: DR. N BHAGYALAXMI

BY: ANUSHA RAO THOTA

ROLL NUMBER: 2017099
SEMESTER – VI

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 257: Withdrawal by complainant........................................................................3

SECTION 321: Withdrawal of Prosecution..........................................................................3
UNDERSTANDING SECTION 321.....................................................................................4
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND THE SECTION...................................................5
Scope and Applicability.........................................................................................................6
Discharge and Acquittal when ordered..................................................................................6
DISCRETION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR........................................................................9
Role of State government in cases when larger public interest is involved.........................10
CAN THE APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PROSECUTION BE
WITHDRAWN BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR?.........................................................12
CONSENT OF COURT.......................................................................................................12
VICTIMS LOCUS STANDI................................................................................................14
WITHDRAWAL APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES..............................................18
1. Under section 257 of CrPC..........................................................................................18
2. Under Section 321 or CrPC..........................................................................................19

2
 SECTION 257: WITHDRAWAL BY COMPLAINANT
In a private complaint proceeding, if, before the final order has been issued, the plaintiff tells
the magistrate that there are fair grounds for allowing him to withdraw his complaint against
the accused, then the magistrate may cause him to withdraw the complaint and ultimately
acquit the accused. (Sec.257 Cr.P.C.)).
In a tribunal of a warrant case opened on a private allegation, the complainant has no right to
remove the complaint. The only clause which may have any meaning in this situation is
Section 224 of the code.

“257. Withdrawal of complaint. If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed
in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for
permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one
accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same,
and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.”

SECTION 321: WITHDRAWAL OF PROSECUTION

Once a case is launched, but for sound German considerations of criminal justice, the
relentless trajectory will not be reversed.
In itself, the above-mentioned line includes the premise on which the Public Prosecutor
continues to petition for withdrawal from trial. This concept is enshrined in the 1973 Code of
Criminal Law, section 321.

Since the State is responsible for the conviction of the defendant in the criminal justice
system, the Public Prosecutor, who serves in the case as a government official and as a court
officer, takes paramount priority in the administration of justice. Beneath the s. 321, the
Public Prosecutor shall be empowered to withdraw from proceedings at any point before the
verdict is delivered upon the permission of the judge.

The phase of removal from trial has the General Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor
as its primary actor, and the court as the boss. As the section itself envisages, there is no role
for the government in this process.. In actual fact, though, the government is the executive
dealing with prosecution and thus has main say necessarily. Since the state government

3
appoints the Public Prosecutor, it has an agent-principal arrangement with the government,
which is also the root of all interpretative and functional issues.

The essential features of the S. in this essay 321 from Cr.P.C. They were looking at it in
depth. Furthermore, in agreeing to withdraw from trial, the role of the Public Prosecutor vis-
à-vis the State Government shall be discussed and evaluated by means of case laws and
related clauses. In addition, with the aid of case laws, the role of the court as supervisor in
giving consent to the application must also be analysed. Finally, the status of the accused or
any third party in the statute in relation to his or her position was also examined in opposition
to the motion for withdrawal from trial.

UNDERSTANDING SECTION 321

Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 “deals with the aspect of withdrawal from
prosecution by the Public Prosecutor. This section corresponds to S. 494 of the old Cr.P.C.
The new section is different from the archaic one in mainly two aspects. One, in earlier
section, the phrase in-charge of a case was not present which led any public prosecutor to
withdraw a case. In the new section, only the Public prosecutor or Assistant public prosecutor
who is in-charge of the particular case may apply for withdrawal from prosecution. Second,
in the new section, clauses (i) to (iv) have been added to require permission from the Central
government for the Public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution in cases” related with the
Central government.

SECTION 321 OF THE CR.P.C., 1973 READS AS FOLLOWS:

“321. Withdrawal from prosecution.- The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor
in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is
pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of
any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,
1. if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in
respect of such offence or offences;
2. if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is
required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:
Provided that where such offence-

4
(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union
extends, or
(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ), or
(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging
to the Central Government, or
(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the
case hag hot been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been
permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw
from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to
produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the
prosecution.”1

THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND THE SECTION

Any crime is said to be committed not against just the individual but the entire society. Since
the entire “society is injured by the act of the accused and since the entire society cannot
practically sue the accused person, the State arrogates the power and responsibility to initiate
prosecution against the offender. It is not the case that the private individual cannot initiate a
prosecution or that he or she cannot be represented by counsel of his or her choice, but such
counsel will be supervised by the public prosecutor. Thus, generally the Public Prosecutor or
the Assistant Public prosecutor is the authority responsible to conduct the case against the
accused in the court of law.

There may be some occasions in which the Public prosecutor does not find enough evidence
to further the prosecution case against the accused or that he or she realises that furthering the
prosecution case will lead to negating the prosecution evidence or that furthering the
prosecution may not be in the interest of public justice, peace or tranquillity. “The legislature
provided the leeway to the public prosecutor and thus the state government to end such cases
furthering which the larger public interest may be compromised. Thus, the section 321
provides discretion to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution, with the consent

1
Code of Criminal Proceedure, 1973.

5
of the court, in such cases wherein he or she thinks such withdrawal will lead to larger public
interest being served.”

SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

Some special “laws which deal with terrorist related activities like POTA (repealed), UAPA
do not per se have applicability of s. 321 Cr.P.C. but the principle of judicial review still
applies which is the essence of s. 321 Cr.P.C. Thus, even if s. 321 does not apply in its form
as written down in Cr.P.C., the principle of judicial review is applicable in all special laws in
regard to power of court to give consent to the withdrawal application from prosecution filed
by public prosecutor.”

DISCHARGE AND ACQUITTAL WHEN ORDERED

“According to clause (a) of s. 321, if the application for withdrawal from prosecution is made
before charges are framed and the court consents to such application, then the accused is
discharged in respect of the offences he or she was charged with.
According to clause (b) of s. 321, if the application for withdrawal from prosecution is made
after the charges have been farmed and the court consents to the application, then the accused
is acquitted in respect of the offences he or she was” charged with.

Interpretive issues in s. 321

Section 321 broadly comprises of three interpretive areas which have been dealt with by the
courts since the code came into existence.

First interpretative issue is “Who can apply for withdrawal from prosecution? This issue has
within itself deep seated convoluted issues of interpretation. For instance, when prosecutor or
assistant public prosecutor is referred to in section what agency does the government have in
dictating the decision of the prosecution, on what basis the public prosecutor applies for
withdrawal from prosecution, and, how much role does the government play in influencing
the decision of the prosecutor.”

Second interpretative issue is “the consent of the court. This issue has also been widely
discussed in courts of law. At the outset, it may seem pretty simple to understand, but the
complexities surrounding the consent of the court are numerous. For instance, can the court

6
consent without adducing reasons, can the court decline the application without adducing
reasons, and, what all does the court have to examine before consenting to the application.

Third interpretative issue is the victims locus standi. This issue although of grave importance
is given lesser importance in interpretative arenas. The case at the outset was initiated
because it injured the victim primarily and then the society, but, the State in building up the
theory of Parens Patriae happily forgets the concerns of the victim concerned. The State
executive sometimes can sway into political considerations which are antithetical to the
interest of public and apply for withdrawal from prosecution. The victim or any other person
also should have a locus standi before the court entertaining application for withdrawal from
prosecution to oppose such application.”

Who Can Withdraw

According to the section 321, only the “public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor
who is in charge of a particular case can apply for withdrawal from prosecution in the
respective case. Also, a public prosecutor cannot apply for withdrawal from prosecution in
case of private complainant.

Although, the section provides no grounds on which withdrawal from prosecution can be
filed by the Public Prosecutor, the essential inherent condition read into the section by the
Supreme Court is that withdrawal should be in the interest of administration of justice. It is
the responsibility of the respective court, in which the withdrawal application has been filed,
to scrutinize the reasons behind the withdrawal and check that withdrawal is not sought on
reasons extraneous or against the interest of justice. Furthermore, it is the duty of the court to
see that the Public prosecutor actually applies his or her free mind and not just act as mere
mechanical agent of the State government.

The courts in various cases have burdened the public prosecutors with enormous
responsibility to apply their own free mind and even go against the opinion of the State
government if need be. However, the reality is convoluted. The section envisages free
application of mind of the concerned public prosecutor without intervention from any
government except when explicitly required in law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court
itself conceded to the” point in Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar that the Public
Prosecutor is appointed by the State Government and enjoys office on pleasure of
7
government, thus, being more of an agent of the government than an independent officer of
the court. This observation of the Supreme Court is very close to reality indeed.

The courts have interpreted the entire situation as follows: The State government can give
instructions or opinions to the “Public Prosecutor in regards to withdrawal of a case on
ground of policy, public justice, vexatious prosecution, etc., but the Public Prosecutor has to
apply his free mind on to the recommendation of State government and then may decide on
reasons to either withdraw from prosecution or continue. If he decides to withdraw, then he
must give reasons to the court and prove that he applied his free mind on to the pertinent
case. On the other hand, if he decides to continue with the prosecution then he is not left with
any other option but to resign from his post.

Thus, the aspect of free application of mind by the public prosecutor on withdrawal from
criminal prosecution is contentious and bristled with practical problems. The literal
connotation that public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor is responsible for
bringing out the application for withdrawal from the prosecution seems to be quite distant
from the reality wherein the State government have indeed acquired a central role in
determining the fate of the withdrawal from prosecution process.”

The answer to question, “who can withdraw? is certainly the Public Prosecutor or the
Assistant Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case, but, in actual reality this power is often
used by the State government due to the relationship of Agent and Principal between the
Public Prosecutor and the State.

The Supreme Court in Sheonandan paswan v State of Bihar 2, observed that albeit the Public
Prosecutor is the officer of the court but he is also the agent or representative of the
government and thus, he is bound to follow the advice or opinion of the government or leave
the post.”

DISCRETION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The public prosecutor is, under the section, endowed with “unfettered discretion in deciding
what cases to be applied for withdrawal. Nonetheless, such discretion is not unreviewable
2
AIR 1965 SC 1666

8
and, as provided in the section itself, is subject to courts supervisory function. In the case of
M.N. Sankarayarayanan Nair v P.V. Balakrishnan3, the Supreme Court tried to outline the
guideline in regard to which the public prosecutor can exercise his or her discretion. The
court observed that the discretion is guided by the implicit requirement that the withdrawal
should be in the interest of administration of justice. Such may include that prosecution is
unable to collect enough evidence to sustain charges on accused, or that withdrawal is
necessary for controlling law and order situation, or for maintenance” of public peace and
tranquillity etc.

The Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain v State 4, observed that in cases when going
ahead with prosecution “causes or threatens to cause violence, mass agitations, communal
violence, student unrests etc., it is okay and in the interests of public for the public prosecutor
to withdraw from prosecution in such particular cases. The court further observed that when
deciding between going forward with prosecution and withdrawing from prosecution in cases
which threaten the peace of public, the state government is right in withdrawing from the
prosecution. The court held that the narrower public interest of prosecuting the accused”
ought to be jettisoned for securing larger public interest of maintaining peace and tranquillity
in society.

WHAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES PUBLIC INTEREST?

The condition that public prosecutor can seek withdrawal from prosecution on basis of
securing “greater public interest has proven to be vague and the executive has numerous
times misused this vagueness around this condition for securing its self-serving political
interests. Although an exhaustive definition for public interest is difficult to prepare, the
courts have determined the decision of executive on the scale of public interest in light of the
facts and circumstances of cases.

For instance, in State of U.P. v III Additional District & Sessions Judge 5, the state
government sought to withdraw from prosecution against an infamous lower caste woman
dacoit, Phoolan Devi, who committed various crimes like murder, dacoity, etc., against some
higher caste people just to treat them a lesson so that they do not commit atrocities against
3
1961 AIR 1285
4
AIR 1965 SC 1666
5
1961 AIR 1285

9
lower caste people. The Public prosecutor in charge sought to withdraw giving reason that the
accused was forced into such crimes due to the various atrocities committed upon her by the
higher caste people.

However, the court reasoned that there is no service to the public interest in withdrawing
from prosecution in” particular case and rather such withdrawal might lead to caste based
wars wherein every person would think himself or herself to take revenge of any atrocities
committed by another without taking recourse to lawful authorities creating chaos and utter
savageness.

In State of Punjab v Union of India6, the State government took a policy decision to withdraw
from prosecution against the employees of P&T Department in cases where there is no trace
of personal violence or “material destruction. The Public Prosecutor filed application for
withdrawal under then section 494 of the old Cr.P.C. The Magistrate accepted the application
but High Court set aside the acquittal. The Supreme Court on appeal, held that the public
prosecutor can on opinion of the State government seek withdrawal from prosecution in
public interest. In the particular case, the court held that firstly, the court only needs to act as
supervisor i.e., check that the office of public prosecutor has not been used for purposes other
than to serve the interests of public” justice. Secondly, again opening of trial may lead to
public unrest amongst the employees.

ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT IN CASES WHEN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST IS INVOLVED

Although, as has been established in various Supreme Court cases that it is the public
prosecutor who is “solely responsible for deciding whether to file and for filing applications
for withdrawal from prosecution, the Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain v State held that
in cases where large and sensitive issues of public policy and interest are at stake, the public
prosecutor ought to take advice from the State government because the public prosecutor
does not have the requisite source of information and resource to determine the matter
effectively.”

The extent of discretion

6
(2017) 14 SCC 80

10
The Supreme Court in Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar 7 reiterated the law dictated in
Ram Naresh Pandey case “relating to the extent of discretion of the public prosecutor vis-Ã
-vis the State government. The court held that the State is responsible for bringing the
accused who commits crime against the society to justice.”

Thus, it is the prerogative of the State to withdraw from prosecution. The Public Prosecutor
may “apply his independent and free mind and come to the conclusion. If he or she concludes
that prosecution should be withdrawn then he may apply to the court with reasons. And, if he
or she concludes that case ought not to be withdrawn then he has two options “either to ask
the government to relieve him from the particular case lest he shall have to resign, or to
forward the application and then while hearing of the application” give his or her considered
opinion that such application is not sustainable on grounds set out by him or her.”

However, there are certain cases also which effectively bolster the view that the public
prosecutor “has to apply his free mind and is not act as merely a post box of the state
government. In S.K. Shukla v State of U.P8, the court observed that the office of public
prosecutor is important and cannot be used by the state government to fulfil their political
desires as per own whims and fancies. The public prosecutor being an officer of the court has
to act on his free mind and decide on” the issue of withdrawal of application.

The contrasting decisions of the Supreme Court in regard to extent of discretion to Public
prosecutor vis-Ã -vis the “State Government have puzzled the situation. However, when
observed in terms of pragmatism and practical application, the Supreme Court decision in
Sheonandan Paswan seems to be of greater relevance and authority because in this non-ideal
world, the State governments are not usually inclined to hear criticism or denial from its
employees or agents like Public Prosecutors and therefore whenever such officials like Public
Prosecutors tend to give advice contrary to opinion” of the executive, the officials have to
resign or reluctantly follow the opinion of the government.

CAN THE APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PROSECUTION BE

WITHDRAWN BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR?

7
(2017) 14 SCC 80
8
1961 AIR 1285

11
The Supreme Court in N. Natarajan v B.K. Subba Rao 9 and M/s V.L.S. Finance Ltd vs. S.P.
Gupta10 held “that the office of Public prosecutor is not post office and he or she is
responsible to the court and the collective. Further, it held that the public prosecutor has to act
independently when considering the issue of withdrawal from prosecution. Also, the court
held that as long as the application by the prosecutor is in the interests of public justice, the
application to withdraw the application for withdrawal from” prosecution can be heard by
pertinent court.

CONSENT OF COURT
What does the word court refer to?
At the outset, although it may seem to be simple to answer but when actually asked to answer
the question may seem tricky. “Is it the court which makes inquiry and commits the case to
the court of proper jurisdiction or the court which tries the matter, which is being referred in
the section?

The Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain v State 11, held that the expression judgement is
wide enough to include in its purview both the courts- court of Committing Magistrate and
that of Court of Session. Thus, both the courts have authority to hear application for
withdrawal from prosecution from the Public Prosecutor.

The section 321 does not provide any guidelines to be followed by court in determining
whether to give consent to the withdrawal application or not. Thus, the court literally has
unfettered discretion as regards to giving consent to the application for withdrawal from
prosecution filed by prosecutor in charge of case.” However, the Supreme Court has
formulated through various judgements guiding principles to be followed by courts in giving
consent to withdrawal application.

First, the court should “give consent only when it is satisfied that such grant of permission for
withdrawal from prosecution would serve the interests of justice and would not undermine
the principles which the executive is bound to uphold and follow.

9
(1977) 2 SCC 210
10
(2014) 5 SCC 1
11
(1996) 4 SCC 332

12
In Bansi Lal v Chandan Lal12, a criminal case was registered under various sections of IPC
against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions after the
charges were framed. The Public Prosecutor at this stage filed an application for withdrawal
from prosecution on ground that the prosecution” does not want to produce evidence and
continue the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. The court accepted the
application. On revision, the High Court also upheld the trial court decision.

The Supreme Court on appeal held that the trial court cannot mechanically give permission to
withdraw from “prosecution to the public prosecutor. The court has to see that the grounds
adduced in favour of withdrawal are actually in the interests of justice and public interest.
The court also has to see whether the office of public prosecutor is misused by the executive
to fulfil the narrow interest motivated by politics.

Second, the court while giving consent to withdrawal from prosecution acts as a supervisor
and thus, generally, the court should not re-appreciate the grounds on which the public
prosecutor decided to apply for withdrawal. The court, however, is duty bound to examine
whether or not the public prosecutor applied his free mind in deciding the matter. Thus, it is
the courts important duty to scrutinize every application” for withdrawal from prosecution in
regards to application of free mind by the public prosecutor in charge of the particular case.

In Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar 13, the Supreme Court held that the court hearing the
application for “withdrawal from prosecution acts as a supervisor and thus need not to go into
the evidence of the case concerned. The court should not be concerned with what the result
would be if all the evidence is considered. All the court should be concerned with is that in
considering the material placed before it, whether the public prosecutor applied his free mind
and whether the reasoning adopted by him suffers” from inherent perversity which may lead
to injustice.

Third, notwithstanding the fact that court generally is not duty bound to look into the grounds
on basis of which the public prosecutor in charge filed the application, the court may look

12
(1987) 1 SCC 395
13
(1999) 1 SCC 133

13
into the grounds to uphold the interests of public when the reasoning of the public prosecutor
does not pass the test of reasonable man or such is perverse to the justice.

For instance, in Abdul Karim v State of Karnataka 14, when the consent of the court was
sought by the public “prosecutor in charge for withdrawal from prosecution against some
notorious criminals, the Supreme Court did not allow such application. The Supreme Court
observed that albeit the court is not required to examine the grounds which led the public
prosecutor in charge to apply for withdrawal from prosecution, the court shall have liberty to
re-examine them if the reasoning adopted by the public prosecutor seem to be perverse to the
public justice or such is not in consonance with the reasonable” man standard.

VICTIMS LOCUS STANDI

The section 321 is silent on the locus of the victim, complainant or any other person to
oppose the “application of withdrawal from prosecution filed by public prosecutor in charge.
In Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar15, the appellant applied before trial court to initiate
proceedings under section 302 of IPC against the accused while at the same time the
prosecutor was applying for withdrawal from prosecution in the same case.

The court rejected the application of the appellant and granted the permission to public
prosecutor in charge to withdraw from prosecution. Something of the similar nature also
happened in Subhash Chander v State16. In this case,” the private complainant opposed the
application for withdrawal from prosecution, but the application was permitted to be
withdrawn.

The burning issue of the locus standi of the complainant or any other person to oppose the
withdrawal “application has not been decided by court conclusively. In cases like State of
Bihar v Ram Naresh Pandey17, Rajender Kumar Jain v State, Sheonandan Paswan v State of
Bihar and M.N. Sankarayarayanan v P.V. Balakrishnan 18, the Supreme Court on the
opposition raised by the complainant did hear the matter and decided but held also such to be

14
(1987) 1 SCC 395
15
1990 AIR 273
16
(1996) 4 SCC 332
17
(1999) 1 SCC 133
18
(1999) 1 SCC 133

14
outside the locus standi of the complainant. On the other hand, various High courts like that
of Kerala, Bombay and Nagpur” have upheld the locus standi of the private persons or
complainant to oppose the withdrawal application.

But, High courts situated in Patna, Delhi and Calcutta have taken a divergent view that
private person and complainant do not have locus standi to oppose the withdrawal
application.

It becomes travesty of justice when a private person who is indeed the victim of the crime is
not allowed to “oppose the withdrawal application. The state has the authority to prosecute
the accused on behalf of the society and victim but when the state does not fulfils this
obligation due to various reasons, the victim or the person from the community against whom
also the crime is committed as he is also equal” part of community as the victim, should have
the locus standi to oppose the withdrawal application.

There are “indeed some cases which seem to be in right direction. The Andhra Pradesh High
Court in M. Balakrishna Reddy v Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Deptt.,[27] held that an
individual not being the victim of the crime is equally endowed with right to oppose the
withdrawal application from prosecution as is the victim of the crime. Further, the court
observed that the third person is part of the community against whom the crime ha been
committed and thus he or she has locus standi to oppose the withdrawal application.

In V.S. Achuthanandan v R. Balakrishna Pillai19 , the Supreme Court accepted the locus
standi of the opposition leader in opposing the withdrawal application from prosecution
against a minister since no one else was opposing such application.”

Thus, at present, the trend seems to be more in favour of the recognition to victims and third
partys locus standi in opposing the application for withdrawal from prosecution.

19
(2017) 14 SCC 80

15
 WITHDRAWAL APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL
CASES

1. UNDER SECTION 257 OF CRPC.

Under Section 257 of Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant can withdraw a case by
filing a petition if he satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting
him to withdraw his complaint. Thereupon the Magistrate acquits the accused.
Before the Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Visakhapatnam
CC /ST 846983
Complainant: Anusha Thota

Accused: Yeshaswini V
Petition filed to withdraw from prosecuting the case
1. This petition is filed by the complainant in the above numbered case.
2. That the matter related to the above numbered case has been settled and there is no need to
proceed with the case. Any further proceeding with the case will only result in abuse of the
process of the Court.
Hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the
complainant to withdraw the case.
Dated this the 23 day of 08 (enter date)
Sd/- Complainant
Sd/-Advocate

2. UNDER SECTION 321 OR CRPC

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT ______

CC No. of 2012

1. Yeshaswini
… Complainant
Vs
1. Rupesh
… Accused

16
 PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 321 OF Cr.P.C TO WITHDRAW FROM
PROSECUTING THE CASE
1. That the above case prima facie makes out no case against the above named accused.
2. Any further proceeding against him will be abuse of the process of the Court and will only
cause unnecessary harassment of the accused.
Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit
the State to withdraw the case pending against the above accused.
Dated at 23 on this 06 day of 2021
Assistant Public Prosecutor

17