The Supreme Court Administration has tabled a writ against the decision of the public prosecutor not to file a case against the former minister of Koshi, Lilabalab Adhikari, who was accused of human trafficking. However, precedents have already been set that government prosecutors cannot decide whether or not to prosecute someone on the basis of evidence.

There are also examples of convicts being convicted in cases registered after the Supreme Court intervened in the decision of the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney General to grant immunity to a particular person.

Suntali Dhami, a police constable working at District Police Office Achham, was gang-raped by six policemen on October 11, 2066. District Public Prosecutor's Office Achham decided not to prosecute 3 of the accused and to release 3 on bail.

Then Dhami filed a petition in the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the public prosecutor's office and prosecute the accused. Hearing on it, Judges Balram KC and Bharatraj Upreti 

On November 25, 2067, the joint bench ordered the Attorney General's Office to investigate the accused and prosecute the case. 

 Similarly, the public prosecutor's office in Rautahat decided not to pursue a case against Congress leader Mohammad Aftaf Alam, who was accused of burning the injured in a brick kiln when a bomb exploded in Rautahat's Rajpur on Chait 27, the day before the first Constituent Assembly election in 2064.

OC Akhtar's mother Ruksana Khatun and Trilok Pratap Singh (Pintu)'s father Shrinarayan Singh filed a petition in the Supreme Court. Following this, the bench of Judges Sushila Karki and Bharat Bahadur Karki canceled the decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office and ordered to start an investigation and prosecute Alam.

Alam, who was acquitted by abuse of power and power, was finally arrested in October 2076 after about 12 years of the incident. Then on October 18, a case was filed in District Court Rautahat. After 5 years of the case, on May 13, the court found 4 people including Alam guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 

Senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, the public prosecutor, says that these two cases are sufficient as an example of the fact that criminals in criminal cases can't be prosecuted if they want to and leave if they don't want to. Supreme Registrar Bhadrakali Pokharel refused to register the writ filed by him on Sunday. 

'Those found guilty on the basis of evidence must be prosecuted,' Tripathi said, 'The decision of the public prosecutor to imprison an unemployed youth who tried to go to Japan by giving money to the minister, and to release the former minister who had access to the government attorney's decision was right, but the bench overturned it and proved that justice is not dead in this country. I believe that he will do it.'' Senior advocate Tripathi filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. He had submitted a writ petition to submit the offense against the officer before the court. But registrar Pokharel filed the bench with the argument that the attorney has the constitutional right to prosecute the case or not, and cannot enter the court against it.

"According to Article 110(2) of the Constitution, the Attorney General can make the final decision on whether or not the government case will be prosecuted and which section of the Act should be applied, so it seems that it cannot be interfered with," Pokharel said, "Also, Article 158 of the Constitution ( 2) There is a provision that the Attorney General will have the right to make the final decision on whether or not to prosecute a case on behalf of the Government of Nepal before any court or judicial body or official. is.' 

Pokharel has written in the bench order, 'Since the investigation so far has not revealed the objective evidence that Lilaballabh Adhikari was involved in the incident presented in the indictment of the case, the present writ could not be registered under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court as it is stated that when additional evidence is obtained, it will be according to the law.

Senior Advocate Tripathi said that this bench order of Registrar Pokharel is legal He has responded that it is against the principles, the example of the Supreme Court and the spirit of the Constitution. 

'In the case of Suntali Dhami and Aftab Alam, the public prosecutor's office had decided not to pursue the case, but after the Supreme Court overruled it and ordered to proceed with the investigation and prosecution, the court decided to imprison the culprits in both the cases,' he said, 'Despite this clear precedent, the Supreme Court How can the administration approve the decision made by the public prosecutor's office? Janak Rai and Kanchan Devkota of Rasuwa went to Japan on October 13 via a Cathay Pacific flight. They were denied entry by the immigration there and sent back to the country after the documents were found to be suspicious. Coming back  During the

, Sherpa, Rai and Devkota were arrested from the Tribhuvan International Airport and the officer escaped saying that he was a minister. But after all-round pressure, he was arrested on October 25. Navin Rai, Guddi Rai, Mahesh Pandey, Bir Bahadur Sunar and Jugal Rizal were arrested during the investigation. According to Section 4 (2) of Human Trafficking and Trafficking Control Act, 2064 against them  The police gave an opinion to prosecute the

offense and the offense related to writing. But contrary to the opinion of the police, the public prosecutor's office has given immunity to the former minister officer. 

Senior advocate Tripathi said that the court's order is legally flawed and will file a petition against it directly in the court. If the supreme administration refuses to register a writ for any reason, there is a constitutional provision that an application can be made directly to the bench. If the bench hears it and finds it appropriate to register the case, the bench is dismissed. If the bench is upheld, there is a legal provision that the case will not be filed again. 

In the writ filed by the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Tripathi has mentioned that 'the decision not to prosecute him is prima facie illegal'. He argued that 'pick and choose' in prosecution is against the basic concept of rule of law. He argued that the decision of the public prosecutor's office not to prosecute the case was wrong because the fact that he and the youth were sent back from Japan was self-evident after the officer's direct involvement in human trafficking was seen and the other defendants who were arrested gave a statement that they were taken to Japan with a large sum of money.