George Alexander v. State of Kerala

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 321 – Section 397 – Section 401 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 360 – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Locus Standi of Accused – Maintainability of Revision Petition – Non-Application of Judicial Mind by Trial Court.

2025 KER 43501 : 2025 (6) KLR 183 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2170

High Court of Kerala – Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 23 & 268 of 2017 – Decided on 18.06.2025 – Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Held: An accused, as an aggrieved party, has the locus standi to challenge an order refusing consent for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. (Section 360 of BNSS) through a revision petition under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. (Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS), if the order is vitiated by non-application of judicial mind, illegality, or arbitrariness resulting in miscarriage of justice, even if the State does not challenge the order. The court’s supervisory role under Section 321 requires it to assess the Public Prosecutor’s application and materials independently, and the order must reflect reasoned application of mind. Impugned orders lacking reasons for refusing withdrawal were set aside, and trial courts directed to reconsider applications within two months.

Cases Referred:

Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877
Abdul Wahab K. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC 4265
State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318
Binoy v. State of Kerala, 2024 (4) KLT 896
Anjali Devadas v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC OnLine 10107
V.L.S. Finance Limited v. S.P. Gupta, (2016) 3 SCC 736

Keywords: Withdrawal from Prosecution, Locus Standi, Accused, Revision Petition, Public Prosecutor, Judicial Discretion, Non-Application of Mind

For Petitioners : Advs. Millu Dandapani & R.Surendran For Respondents : Advs. E.C. Bineesh (Sr. Government Pleader); Mahesh V Ramakrishnan & A. Arunkumar

ADVOCATES