"States begin FIR withdrawal process after Supreme Court order on student protests"
Section 360 BNSS
provision allowing public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution at any pre-judgment stage, with court consent
Section 193 BNSS
provision for filing a closure/final report where investigating agency finds insufficient evidence
The power to withdraw criminal prosecutions in India sits at the intersection of executive authority, prosecutorial independence, and judicial oversight. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the governing provisions are Section 360 (withdrawal from prosecution) and Section 193 (filing of closure reports). Section 360 BNSS mirrors the erstwhile Section 321 CrPC: it permits a public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor to apply to the court for withdrawal from prosecution at any pre-judgment stage, but only with the court's consent. This dual-gatekeeper design — the prosecutor must independently decide to seek withdrawal, and the court must be satisfied that withdrawal serves the ends of justice — was a deliberate constitutional choice to insulate criminal justice from purely political calculation.
The constitutional architecture reinforces this. 'Police' and 'Public Order' are Entry 1 and Entry 2 of the State List (List II) under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, placing them squarely within the exclusive legislative and executive domain of State governments. The Union government cannot issue binding directives to State police forces on policing matters — a structural reality that becomes legally critical whenever the Centre makes political assurances about criminal cases registered by State governments. The sole exception is the Delhi Police, which operates under the Union government. Public prosecutors are appointed by State governments, creating a structural tension: the appointing authority is the executive, yet the prosecutor is expected to act as an independent officer of the court.
An FIR, once registered, cannot be cancelled by executive order alone. The statutory process under Section 360 BNSS requires the public prosecutor to form an independent opinion — not merely relay government instructions — and then move the court. The court must then apply its mind and grant consent; it is not a rubber stamp. The Supreme Court has consistently held, including in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, that a public prosecutor who mechanically follows government directions without independent application of mind acts contrary to the statute and vitiates the withdrawal. This principle protects the integrity of criminal justice from being reduced to a political instrument.
Alternatively, where the investigating agency finds insufficient evidence, it may file a closure report (also called a 'B-summary' or 'final report') under Section 193 BNSS. …
Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?
1.A Zero FIR can be lodged at any police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
2.The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry.
3.Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.
Select the answer using the code given below:
With reference to the withdrawal of criminal prosecution under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, consider the following statements:
1.The power to withdraw from prosecution vests in the public prosecutor, not in the executive government.
2.Court consent is mandatory before withdrawal can take effect.
3.If withdrawal is granted after charges have been framed, the accused is discharged.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly identifies the constitutional entries under which 'Police' and 'Public Order' are placed in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India?
Consider the following statements regarding the legal effect of an executive direction to police to refrain from 'coercive action' against persons named in an FIR:
1.Such a direction legally terminates the FIR.
2.Such a direction does not confer acquittal or discharge on the accused.
3.The FIR remains alive on record and can be reactivated by a subsequent government.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to the appointment and role of public prosecutors in India, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1.Public prosecutors are appointed by State governments under the BNSS.
2.A public prosecutor who mechanically follows government directions without independent application of mind acts contrary to the statute.
3.The Union government can direct State public prosecutors to withdraw cases registered by State police.
Assertion (A): A political assurance by the Union government that no punitive action will be taken against protesters in cases registered by State police is not legally binding on State governments.
Reason (R): 'Police' and 'Public Order' are entries in the State List under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, placing them within the exclusive executive domain of State governments.
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account