Introduction:

In the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the crucial role of the Public Prosecutor in prosecuting accused individuals, emphasizing their duty to uphold legal obligations even after the rejection of prosecution withdrawal by higher courts. The court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, examined the duty of the Public Prosecutor and the process of framing charges against the accused.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The case involved Criminal Revision Petitions filed by both the accused and the State of Rajasthan regarding the framing of charges against the accused and the discharge of the accused by the Sessions Court. The Superintendent of Police had applied under Section 169 Cr.PC for the release of the accused, which was rejected by the Magistrate. Subsequently, an application under Section 321 Cr.PC for withdrawal of prosecution was rejected by the Sessions Judge and later by the Supreme Court. The court considered the role of the Public Prosecutor under Sections 225 and 226 Cr.PC and the duty to prosecute the accused even after the rejection of withdrawal of prosecution.

Court’s Judgement:

The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges against the accused, the focus is on establishing a prima facie case rather than analyzing evidence in detail. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, it rejected the petitioners’ claim to quash charges against them, asserting that it is for the Sessions Court to determine the accused’s involvement in the offense during trial.

Regarding the discharge of the accused by the Trial Court, the High Court held that there was a prima facie case to proceed against them based on the chargesheet. It overturned the Trial Court’s decision and remarked on its meticulous examination of evidence in favor of the accused.

The court highlighted the Public Prosecutor’s duty to prosecute the accused once the application for withdrawal of prosecution is rejected by the concerned court. It condemned the Prosecutor’s attempt to request discharge for the petitioners despite the rejection of the withdrawal application by higher courts. The court stressed the Prosecutor’s obligation to act in the public interest and ensure fair proceedings.