Withdrawal from prosecution
Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with withdrawal from prosecution. The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,---
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Sanhita no charge is required,
he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:
Provided that where such offence---
(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; or
(ii) was investigated under any Central Act; or
(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government; or
(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,
and the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution:
Provided further that no Court shall allow such withdrawal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the victim in the case.
Section 360, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 321 Withdrawal from prosecution Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 321, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-12.pdf 2014-07-31. Dipak Misra. DATE-CHECK flagged 2011-12-08 HC / 2006 FIR dates (false positive); body is the named 31 Jul 2014 reportable on s.321 withdrawal. The Public Prosecutor is not a post office; the court must independently be satisfied that withdrawal serves the administration of justice, especially in PC Act prosecutions of gravity.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 321 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8959). The independent-satisfaction standard on withdrawal carries to BNSS 360.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 321, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Withdrawal of prosecution by Public Prosecutor with court consent; court must exercise supervisory function to ensure proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion
-
Margadarsi Financiers vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 321, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A designated Senior Advocate cannot be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, because such appointment would require the Senior Advocate to directly file applications and conduct prosecutions, which violates the mandatory restrictions imposed on Senior Advocates under the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961. Additionally, while the procedure prescribed under Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 24 CrPC (panel preparation and consultation) is not mandatory for Special Public Prosecutor appointments under Sub-section 8, the restrictions on Senior Advocates' practice are absolute and cannot be circumvented by government appointment.
On this section: Withdrawal of prosecution by Public Prosecutor
-
M.k.prasad vs Dy.s.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 321, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An acquittal or discharge made by a court lacking competent jurisdiction due to absence of valid sanction for prosecution does not constitute a bar under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code against subsequent prosecution for the same offence after obtaining proper sanction. The first trial is null and void as the court was incompetent to take cognizance and record a valid verdict. Therefore, one of the essential conditions for invoking the bar under Section 300 CrPC (requisite jurisdiction of the court) is lacking, and the accused can be prosecuted afresh after obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority.
On this section: Withdrawal of prosecution; Clause (b) provides that if withdrawal is made after charge has been framed, the accused shall be acquitted; the court examined whether withdrawal in this case amounted to acquittal
-
The Public Prosecutor, Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Guntur vs Konidela Pawan Kalyan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 321, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Village Volunteers appointed on a time-phrase basis do not fall under the definition of 'Public Servant' in Section 21 IPC, and general criticism of a policy or system does not constitute criminal defamation if it lacks specific intent to harm individuals and is protected by Article 19(1)(a).
On this section: Withdrawal from prosecution with the consent of the court.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 360
What have the courts held on Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (31 Jul 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 321, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 321 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8959). The independent-satisfaction standard on withdrawal carries to BNSS 360. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 360, section 360 BNSS, section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 360 bnss in crpc and 360 bnss act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (31 Jul 2014).
What should I read with Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 321 (Withdrawal from prosecution), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 360, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.