Withdrawal of Civil and Criminal cases in Bangladesh
Can a lawsuit or case be withdrawn after it has been filed? (Civil and Criminal)
Criminal cases:
Criminal cases are often classified into two types:
I) CR and
II) GR.
GR cases are normally reported to the police. The CR case must be filed in the criminal court.
In the GR case, the state chooses lawyers for the plaintiffs, known as public prosecutors (PP). And in CR situations, the complainant must personally hire a lawyer to handle the case.
The decision to withdraw a case may be made owing to a lack of sufficient evidence in the case or a compromise between the parties involved. The criminal procedure contains two sorts of provisions for the withdrawal of cases.
In circumstances where the state is a party to the GR case, the public prosecutor may ask to withdraw it under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In a CR case, the complainant or a counsel hired on his behalf may ask to have the case withdrawn under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The public prosecutor withdrawing the case:
According to Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a state prosecutor or public prosecutor may withdraw from prosecuting a person in any one or more of the offenses for which he is now being tried, with the permission of the court. The government, as plaintiff, will persuade the court that it has a valid basis to withdraw from handling the case. The court will not grant authorization based solely on the government’s order to withdraw from the lawsuit.
A number of points were raised when the lawsuit was withdrawn under section 494, and the court was urged to address them.
Withdrawal of complaint (CR) case
According to Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the plaintiff can convince the magistrate that there is sufficient grounds to allow him to withdraw the complaint before the case’s final order, the magistrate will allow him to do so while acquitting the accused.
This clause applies only to throwaway cases, as defined in clause 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant can withdraw the complaint under this section.
For example, only the public prosecutor may apply to withdraw the case. The case cannot be withdrawn based on the petitioner’s or the accused’s motion, or any government action.
Second, the prosecutor must explain to the court the rationale for abandoning the case. The court will not order that the case be withdrawn only on the basis of the government’s decision.
The decision by the court to withdraw the lawsuit is final. Thus, if the court is dissatisfied with the basis for withdrawing the case, it will order the case to proceed without permitting the withdrawal.
If the victim, plaintiff, or plaintiff in the case believes that the state abandoned their case unnecessarily, they may submit a revision with the Sessions Judge Court or the High Court Division.
Withdrawal of civil lawsuit
According to Rule 1 of Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff may withdraw the civil complaint against all or any of the defendants at any time after it has been filed, or give up a portion of the claim. In circumstances when the court determines that the lawsuit is doomed to fail owing to a procedural error and there is sufficient reason to allow the plaintiff to sue again for the substance of the lawsuit or a portion of a claim, the court withdraws the plaintiff’s action on appropriate terms or in part. You may provide authorization to dismiss the claim and re-litigation based on the content of the case or a similar partial claim.
In circumstances where the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit or abandons the partial claim without the court’s approval, the plaintiff will be accountable for the lawsuit’s expenses as determined by the court and will be barred from filing a new lawsuit on that content or partial claim.
This rule prohibits a court from allowing one of the few plaintiffs to withdraw the complaint without the permission of the other plaintiffs.
Following withdrawal, the identical matter can no longer be sued.
If a case is withdrawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure, it cannot be re-filed. Such cases are forbidden under the ‘Race Judicata’ or Dobara policy in civil trials, and the ‘Double Geopardy’ or Dobara penalty policy in criminal cases. If the court is satisfied by submitting a revision in a higher court, it may order reconsideration or re-investigation in the interest of justice.
Client’s obligations
A conflict of interest may occur while representing two defendants.
If this happens, it is necessary to withdraw from at least one client. Continuing to act would constitute a violation of the SRA Code on Conflicts of Interest.
If continuing to work for the remaining client would violate your duty of confidentiality to your former client, you must resign from both clients in accordance with the SRA’s confidentiality and disclosure policy.
Judicial obligations
If a client modifies instructions in such a way that continuing would result in you misleading the court, you must withdraw from the matter, according to paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct.
When the civil lawsuit is being withdrawn:
According to Rule 1 of Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff may withdraw the civil complaint against all or any of the defendants at any time after it has been filed, or give up a portion of the claim.
When the court determines that the lawsuit is doomed to fail owing to a procedural error and that there is sufficient justification to allow the plaintiff to sue again for the lawsuit’s substance or a portion of a claim, the court withdraws the plaintiff’s suit on reasonable conditions or in whole.
One may grant permission to dismiss the claim and re-litigate the contents of the case or a similar partial claim.
If the plaintiff withdraws the case or abandons the partial claim without the court’s approval, the plaintiff is responsible for the lawsuit’s expenses as established by the court and loses the opportunity to bring a new lawsuit on that content or partial claim.
According to this rule, a court may not allow one of the few plaintiffs to withdraw the complaint without the other plaintiffs consent.
The same case cannot be sued again following the withdrawal.
If a matter is withdrawn in line with the established procedure, it cannot be re-filed. In civil courts, such cases are forbidden under the ‘Res Judicata’ or Dobara policy, while in criminal cases, the ‘Double Geopardy’ or Dobara penalty policy. If the court is satisfied after filing a revision with a higher court, it may order reconsideration or re-investigation in the interest of justice.
Res Judicata
‘A’ sued ‘B’ for not paying rent. ‘B’ requested that the rent be decreased because the land area was less than what was stipulated in the lease. The Court found that the area was larger than stated in the lease. The area was enormous, hence res judicata rules would not be used.
In one example, ‘A’ new lawsuit was brought, and the defendants asked the court to dismiss it with a plea of res judicata.
He was unable to launch a res judicata claim since his earlier suit had been dismissed for fraud. The Court stated that the res judicata defense must be demonstrated with evidence.
The notion of Res Judicata
The notion of res judicata attempts to ensure fair administration of justice and honesty while also preventing legal abuse.
When a litigant wants to bring a subsequent lawsuit on the same subject after receiving a decision in a previous case involving the same parties, the principle of res judicata applies.
This applies not only to the precise claims filed in the first case, but also to claims that could have been made in many other jurisdictions during the same time frame.
The High Court Division has the inherent power to make such an order.
Impact on the Justice System
While withdrawals can speed up the legal procedure and minimize the strain on the judiciary, there are worries regarding potential abuse of this tool. Critics contend that affluent persons or those with political influence frequently use the withdrawal system to avoid justice for crimes committed. Misuse frequently erodes public trust and undermines the credibility of the legal system.
The Functions of Compromise and Alternative Dispute Resolution
The withdrawal of cases indicates the presence of room for compromise and other conflict resolution processes. These strategies can be helpful for fostering unity and ensuring prompt resolution, but they must be used wisely. Encouraging parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement is critical for reducing litigation backlog and providing a sense of closure.
Enhancing Transparency and Accountability
Concerns regarding misuse must be addressed by implementing procedures that enhance openness and accountability. This may need rigorous monitoring of the withdrawal process to ensure that withdrawals are not impacted by undue pressure or manipulation. To keep the judicial system functioning properly, authorities must also investigate charges of coercion or bribes. Balancing Public Interest with Private Settlements Efforts should be made to find a balance between advancing the public interest and protecting an individual’s freedom to withdraw cases. Individuals should have the right to seek private settlements, but it should not jeopardize justice, especially in cases involving major crimes or violence. Stricter controls may be required to prevent the withdrawal of cases threatening public safety.
Implications of Case Withdrawal.
The withdrawal of cases in Bangladesh has serious consequences for the legal system and society as a whole. It fosters a culture of impunity in which criminals avoid accountability, undermining public trust in the legal system. It also violates the notion of equality before the law, as powerful persons are given preferential treatment while marginalized and vulnerable groups pay the repercussions. Case withdrawals hamper trial progress and strain the court system, resulting in severe delays in justice delivery.
Solutions for Addressing the Issue
To address the issue of case withdrawal, a multifaceted strategy is required. First, judicial changes are required to improve openness, minimize corruption, and reinforce the judiciary’s independence. This involves improving the appointment process for judges and holding them accountable. Second, strict enforcement of the law against individuals who influence or pressure victims to withdraw their cases is critical. This will act as a deterrence and convey a strong message that justice will prevail. Third, awareness programs should be undertaken to educate citizens about their rights and the necessity of seeking legal remedies.