What does Section 321 CrPC allow?

It lets the Public Prosecutor seek permission of the court to withdraw from prosecution if it serves public justice. The court must give consent.

Is there an appeal against a consent order under Section 321?

No. A consent order allowing withdrawal is not appealable. However, it may be tested in revision on limited grounds.

What can a court examine in revision of a Section 321 consent?

Only correctness, legality, and propriety of the order. The court should not conduct a roving enquiry into detailed facts and evidence.

Can review be used like an appeal to re-argue the whole case?

No. Review jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appeal against the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court.

What was finally decided in this case?

The Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal. All requirements of Section 321 were met, the Magistrate’s consent was valid, and the appeal was dismissed.

Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288

Supreme Court of India 1987 (1987) 1 SCC 288 Criminal Procedure ~7 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Location: India | Published: 02 Nov 2025

Section 321 CrPC Withdrawal from prosecution Consent order Revision under Section 397 Appeal vs Review

Quick Summary

This case explains how Section 321 CrPC works. The Public Prosecutor may ask to withdraw a case in public interest, but only with the court’s consent. A consent order allowing withdrawal is not appealable. It can be checked in revision, but the court should not reopen all facts like an appeal. Here, the Supreme Court found that the legal tests for withdrawal were met and upheld the consent given by the trial court.

Judgment theme illustration for Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar

```

Issues

During revision of a Section 321 consent order, can the Supreme Court go into a detailed enquiry of facts and evidence?
Is a consent order passed under Section 321 CrPC open to an appeal?

Rules

No appeal lies against a court’s consent under Section 321 CrPC (withdrawal from prosecution).
Revision lies under Section 397 CrPC to test correctness, legality, and propriety—not to re-try facts.
In review, the Supreme Court cannot convert the exercise into an appeal against its own earlier judgment.

Facts (Timeline)

Jump here

Timeline image for facts in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar

1970: Patna Urban Cooperative Bank started; key office-bearers appointed.

1973–1976: Irregularities surfaced; licence revoked; liquidator appointed; Assembly debated the matter.

1977–1979: With political changes, an investigation was sought; prosecution launched against several persons including Dr. Jagannath Misra.

1980: New policy to withdraw politically motivated cases; Prosecutor moved under Section 321 citing public interest and lack of evidence.

Special Judge allowed withdrawal; High Court upheld it on challenge by Sheonandan Paswan.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal; later review petition gave rise to the present decision.

Arguments

Appellant (Sheonandan Paswan)

Withdrawal was political; court should examine facts in depth.
Consent was improper; higher scrutiny needed.

Respondents (State/Others)

All Section 321 requirements met; public interest served.
In revision, the court checks legality and propriety, not a fresh appraisal of evidence.

Judgment (Held)

All legal conditions for withdrawal under Section 321 were satisfied.
There is no appeal against a consent order under Section 321.
A consent order is revisable under Section 397, but courts cannot conduct a roving enquiry into facts and evidence.
Review cannot be used like an appeal against the Supreme Court’s previous judgment.
Magistrate’s consent was given after due consideration; appeal dismissed.

Ratio

Withdrawal under Section 321 is a prosecutorial decision controlled by the court’s consent. Once consent is granted, the proper challenge is by revision on limited grounds—legality, correctness, and propriety—not by appeal or a full evidence review.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the boundary between appeal, revision, and review in criminal procedure.
Guides prosecutors and courts on public interest withdrawals and judicial oversight.

Key Takeaways

Section 321 needs court consent + public interest.
Consent orders are not appealable.
Revision checks legality and propriety only.

No roving enquiry into facts at revision stage.
Review ≠ appeal; narrow window.
Magistrate’s considered consent was upheld.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CoReRe” → Consent (321), Revision (397, limited), Review (not appeal).

Check court consent & public interest.
Test by revision for legality/propriety.
Avoid turning review into a fresh appeal.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Scope of appeal/revision/review for Section 321 consent orders.

Rule

No appeal; revision under s.397 limited; review cannot re-argue merits.

Application

Prosecutor’s withdrawal met legal tests; Magistrate applied mind; higher courts applied limited review.

Conclusion

Consent valid; appeal dismissed; withdrawal stands.

Glossary

Section 321 CrPC: Provision allowing Public Prosecutor to seek withdrawal from prosecution with court’s consent.
Consent Order: Order where the court agrees to the prosecutor’s request to withdraw.
Revision (s.397): Supervisory power to correct illegality or impropriety, not to re-try facts.