APHC010028842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 24 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:- 22 [3483] Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Jilla Sadhana Sammiti ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Sri Karthik Shah for Sri Jada Sravan Kumar Advocate for Respondents : Smt S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 15th October 2025 P C : The present petition was filed purportedly in public interest questioning the Government Order vide G.O.Rt.No.1566, HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT, dated 20.12.2023 whereby, a decision has been taken to withdraw the prosecution in as many as six cases registered against the accused in Amalapuram Town Police Station and Amalapuram Taluka Police Station. 2. Directions had been issued to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh to instruct the Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor 2 concerned to file a petition under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) for withdrawal of prosecution of the said six cases. 3. Case of the petitioner was that the power to withdraw the prosecution lies exclusively with the Public Prosecutor in terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C. and that no Government’s interference in that power could be legally sustainable. 4. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Balwant Singh vs. State of Bihar1 to emphasize the point that the Public Prosecutor cannot be commanded or ordered to move an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution. 5. Smt S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, states that only because the Government has issued a G.O. directing the withdrawal of the proceedings against the accused does not vitiate the power which is otherwise exercisable by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. 6. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajender Kumar Jain vs. State2 as also recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith and others3. 1 [1977 (4) SCC page 448] 2 [1980 (3) SCC 435] 3 [2021 Law Suit (SC) 384] 3 7. Considering the submissions made, in our detailed order dated 31.01.2024, we had, as an interim measure, directed that while the Public Prosecutor is vested with the power to move an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., yet, notwithstanding the fact that the G.O. had been issued, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rajender Kumar Jain vs. State could be followed and the Public Prosecutor would be entitled to take an independent decision as to whether the prosecution had to be withdrawn or not. 8. 8. Today, an application for impleadment has been made by two accused, who are facing the prosecution in the Courts below, who states that on account of the pendency of the present P.I.L., the applicants were made to suffer inasmuch as the cases were not moving forward and that the damocles sword is hanging over his head and also others who are similarly placed. It was urged that in case the Public Prosecutor was not inclined to exercise his powers under Section 321 Cr.P.C., there would be no reason for the Courts below to not proceed with the cases which are pending against the accused. 9. We see reason in the submission made and dispose of the present P.I.L. with a direction that in case there is no application made under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by the Prosecuting Officer, the Courts before whom the criminal proceedings are pending, which otherwise form the subject matter of the Government Order impugned, would proceed further in the matter. No costs. 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, including implead application – I.A. No.1 of 2025 shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J AMD 5 224 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WP(PIL) NO: 24 of 2024 Dt:15.10.2025 AMD