Earlier, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had permitted withdrawal of prosecution in 15 of the cases.
Out of the 45 cases for which withdrawal of prosecution was not permitted, 4 resulted in discharge/acquittal.
on national highways during Covid-19 era;- Cases under S.51 of the Disaster Management Act, pertaining to Covid-19 pandemic.
Prosecution permitted to be withdrawn against all cases."
Case: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (HOME) Versus COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION SLP(Crl) No.
The Supreme Court has permitted the Himachal Pradesh government to withdraw prosecution in 63 criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs that were registered in connection with public demonstrations and dharnas during the Covid-19 period.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed the State's plea to withdraw prosecution in the cases, observing that there was no reason to deny the request where the allegations did not involve heinous offences or bodily injury.
Earlier, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had permitted withdrawal of prosecution in 15 of the cases. Out of the 45 cases for which withdrawal of prosecution was not permitted, 4 resulted in discharge/acquittal. Two were disposed of as they were wrongly mentioned.
In the view of the Supreme Court, the remaining cases could be broadly categorized as follows -
- Cases under S.269 IPC registered during the Covid-19 pandemic with allegations of action likely to spread infection;
- Cases under S.353 IPC arising out of assault/criminal force against public servant during Covid-19 but without there being any instance of injury/assault caused to public servant;
- Cases under S.504/506 IPC alleging breach of peace and criminal intimidation during Covid-19 pandemic;
- Cases under S.8B of the National Highways Act pertaining to dharna etc. on national highways during Covid-19 era;
- Cases under S.51 of the Disaster Management Act, pertaining to Covid-19 pandemic.
Considering the nature of allegations in the remaining 39 cases, and the fact that all the cases pertained to the Covid-19 period, the Supreme Court found no justification in allowing partial withdrawal of the cases. The Bench noted that none of the cases involved a heinous offence or an allegation of bodily injury. Also, the accused were not hardened criminals and were public representatives who were essentially raising public grievances.
"On perusal of allegations in some FIRs, we find that all incidents pertain to Covid-19 period which was an exceptional condition with unforeseen circumstances where people including public representatives were in distress. None of the cases show grave or heinous crime. There is not even a remote suggestion that accused are hardened criminals or indulged in heinous offenses. All public representatives are with respect to participation in public dharma or voicing grievance of public."
The Bench further observed that the prosecutions would consume Court time at the cost of other serious or contentious cases that require expeditious adjudication. Finding no reason to restrict the State's request, the Court held that the request for withdrawal of prosecution should be accepted in its entirety.
"In our view, continuation of such proceedings would neither serve cause of criminal justice system nor benefit...rather, the proceedings will be hampering other serious contentious cases which courts are expected to decide timely. We see no reason for not accepting state's application in entirety with respect to 65 cases (actually 63). Appeal is allowed. Prosecution permitted to be withdrawn against all cases."
Case: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (HOME) Versus COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION SLP(Crl) No. 2770/2026
