'State Govt Shielding MLA': Gujarat HC Dismisses Petition Seeking Withdrawal of Prosecution

The high court also came down heavily on the special public prosecutor, saying he was behaving like a 'sheer puppet' in the hands of the Gujarat government.

The Wire Staff

The high court also came down heavily on the special public prosecutor, saying he was behaving like a 'sheer puppet' in the hands of the Gujarat government.

state govt shielding mla gujarat hc dismisses petition seeking withdrawal of prosecution

Gujarat high court. Photo: PTI

New Delhi: Saying that the state government was trying to shield a sitting MLA, the Gujarat high court on Wednesday (November 9) dismissed a petition seeking withdrawal of prosecution against Dharmedrasinh alias Hakubha Jadeja. Jadeja is an accused in a 2007 mob violence case.

According to LiveLaw, Justice Niral R. Mehta said in his judgment, "This Court firmly believes that anyhow and at any cost, the State Government is trying to save his sitting MLA under the provisions of Section 321 of the Code under the pretext of larger public interest."

The case pertains to an incident in December 2007, when 200-300 people gathered outside the gate of Essar Company offices. The mob pelted stones at company buses and some employees were also injured.

An FIR was lodged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 332, 324, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act against 46 persons including Jadeja, who was then a member of the district panchayat. The accused were chargesheeted in 2008.

In October 2020, according to LiveLaw, the additional public prosecutor submitted an application for withdrawal of the case against all accused persons. The chief judicial magistrate dismissed this plea, after which the district government pleader and BJP MLA filed revisions against the order in the sessions court. The sessions court rejected their applications.

Special Public Prosecutor for the District Devbhoomi Dwarka for conducting cases against MPs and MLAs Kamleshkumar C. Dave decided to take up the matter again after taking charge. He filed an application seeking withdrawal of charges in a trial court, which remains pending. He also filed a petition in the high court since the Supreme Court has said that prosecution against a sitting MP or MLA can't be withdrawn without the high court's permission.

The Gujarat high court referred to earlier dismissals and said that the petition seeking withdrawal of prosecution was made without any independent application of mind, and only because of pressure from higher authorities. The court noted:

"Pertinently, one of the accused is a sitting MLA and thereby there are all reasons to believe that at his instance, pressure was made on the then learned APP despite his negative opinion. The said belief can be fortified from the fact that even with the change of learned APP, again, the same application under the provisions of Section 321 came to be moved. Thus, this Court firmly believes that anyhow and at any cost, the State Government is trying to save his sitting MLA under the provisions of Section 321 of the Code under the pretext of larger public interest."

The SPP's petition, the court continues, does not seem to have taken into account public interest:

"Learned APP in his application Exh.341 has nowhere stated that how the withdrawal from prosecution would sub-serve the public interest. This Court could not find as to how withdrawal of criminal case would advance the cause of justice. Considering application Exh.341 as well as keeping in mind the past orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, it appears to this Court that application Exh.341 is not filed with bona fide intention, but is filed only with a view to see that sitting MLA shall escape from liability to undergo rigors of trial."

The court came down heavily on the SPP's actions, LiveLaw reported, saying that the petition suggests he "is nothing but a sheer "puppet" in the hands of the State Government who has not kept his obligation towards the Court as envisaged in Cr.P.C. in mind and only with a view to please the superior authority, made such an application."

This article went live on November tenth, two thousand twenty two, at fifteen minutes past eleven in the morning.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.