Withdrawal From Prosecution Under the BNSS (Section 360): CrPC 321 Mapping (2026)

Explainer · Criminal Procedure · BNSS

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Sometimes the State decides not to press a prosecution further. Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the provision that lets the public prosecutor withdraw from the prosecution of an accused, but only with the consent of the court. It replaced Section 321 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It carries no punishment, because it ends a case rather than imposing a sentence. Last verified October 2026.

01Why withdrawal from prosecution matters

A criminal prosecution is run by the State, not by the individual complainant. There are cases where the State concludes that carrying on serves no public interest: the evidence has collapsed, the matter is better closed, or continuing would be unjust. The law needs a lawful way to stop such a case.

Section 360 is that route. The public prosecutor, who is in charge of the case, can apply to withdraw from the prosecution. But the decision is not the prosecutor’s alone. The court must consent, and the court tests whether the withdrawal is in good faith and in the public interest.

People searching "bnss 360", "section 321 crpc in bnss", or "withdrawal from prosecution" are looking for this provision and the limits on it.

02What Section 360 covers

Section 360 allows the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor in charge of a case to withdraw from the prosecution of any accused, with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgment is delivered. The power sits with the prosecutor, and the consent sits with the court. Neither can do it alone.

The effect of withdrawal depends on the stage:

• If the withdrawal happens before a charge is framed, the accused is discharged in respect of that offence.
• If it happens after a charge is framed, or where no charge is required, the accused is acquitted in respect of that offence.

A proviso carried over from the old law requires, in certain categories of case, that the prosecutor must have the consent of the Central Government before moving to withdraw. These are broadly cases touching the Union’s executive power, central agencies, central government property, or a central government servant acting in the discharge of official duty. The exact wording of this proviso is the main point where the BNSS text is read closely against the old section.

03Section 321 CrPC to Section 360 BNSS

Section 360 of the BNSS replaces Section 321 of the CrPC. The core mechanism is the same: the prosecutor applies, the court consents, and the effect is discharge before charge or acquittal after. The point of difference lies mainly in the drafting of the Central Government consent proviso.

Case law under the old Section 321 still guides Section 360. Courts have held that the prosecutor must apply an independent mind, and that the court must satisfy itself that withdrawal is in good faith and in the public interest, not a cover for improper reasons.

04The court is not a rubber stamp

The most important point in practice is that the prosecutor has no absolute right to withdraw. Filing an application does not end the case. The court applies its own judicial mind.

Courts look at whether the withdrawal serves the broader ends of justice, whether it is in the public interest, and whether the prosecutor acted independently rather than on outside pressure. In serious crimes, courts have refused consent where withdrawal was sought on weak grounds. Recent decisions have also recognised that an accused who is aggrieved by a refusal order may, in limited circumstances, challenge it in revision where the order is shown to be illegal, arbitrary, or perverse.

For related remedies, see plea bargaining under the BNSS and compounding of offences under Section 359, which are other ways a case can end without a full contested trial. For a challenge to an order, see criminal revision under Section 442.

05Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

A withdrawal application lives or dies on how earlier courts have applied the good faith and public interest test, so the right precedents matter, and the consent order can decide the case. Claw is suited to both halves of that task. You can search more than 30 crore judgments by section, party or advocate to find orders on withdrawal from prosecution and the old Section 321, with each result returned in under 5 seconds. You can then keep the cases, orders and hearings in your matter in view across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, so the application and the court order are not missed. See case search across Indian courts.

Claw does not use customer documents to train its AI models, and it is a research and tracking tool, not a substitute for counsel, so it does not draft or file the application. Open a free Claw account to look up and follow a withdrawal matter by party name or advocate name.

06Sources and further reading

• India Code (official text of the BNSS, 2023): indiacode.nic.in
• Ministry of Home Affairs (new criminal laws): mha.gov.in
• Supreme Court of India (judgments): sci.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text of Section 360 and take advice from counsel before you act.

07Frequently asked questions