KATHMANDU, Jan 28: As the process of withdrawing the case against Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Rabi Lamichhane threatens to ripple across similar cases nationwide, the Supreme Court (SC) has stepped in, ordering the submission of additional original evidence in a writ challenging the move.
Lamichhane is facing charges related to cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering. The SC issued the directive after a writ petition questioned the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) decision to withdraw or amend the money laundering and organized crime charges against him.
By demanding the original documents of the so-called “new evidence” that allegedly justified the amendment of charges, the court has pushed the case into a new and critical phase.
The writ was filed against a decision taken by Attorney General Sabita Bhandari to amend the charge sheets against Lamichhane, a former home minister. The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Sharma and Shrikant Paudel.
During the hearing, the bench raised serious questions about whether withdrawing the charges contradicts precedents established by the SC itself. This prompted the court to seek additional original evidence.
Legal sources say the order stems from a fundamental legal issue: the OAG does not have the authority to directly withdraw a charge sheet.
SC corrects error in RSP Chair Lamichhane’s case
“A state prosecutor’s role is to strengthen a case, not weaken it,” said advocate Anantraj Luintel. “But this move appears to do the opposite. The Supreme Court is essentially asking: what is the new evidence? Because without new evidence, amendment of charges is not legally justified.”
According to Luintel, the OAG must now clearly explain both the reasons for amending the charges and the evidence backing the decision.
Attorney General Bhandari has already instructed district government attorneys’ offices in Kaski, Rupandehi, Kathmandu, and Parsa to remove the money laundering and organized crime charges in cooperative fraud cases that have already received preliminary court orders. Following this directive, the district offices have submitted internal notes and forwarded them accordingly.
However, a government attorney noted that the move is contradictory. “The same office that earlier directed the filing of these charges is now instructing their removal. That is legally problematic,” the attorney said.
Legal experts warn that the Attorney General could even face allegations of abuse of authority in the future. “No one is openly speaking about it yet, but actions that the law does not permit have been taken. Since the law clearly states that such cases cannot be withdrawn, this could eventually lead to an abuse-of-office case,” the attorney added.
Observers say the implications extend far beyond Lamichhane. The withdrawal process could affect money laundering and organized crime cases currently pending in courts across the country.
Under criminal law, priority must be given to the offense—not the individual. Legal experts argue that centering the withdrawal process on Lamichhane as a person, rather than on the nature of the crimes, risks undermining similar prosecutions nationwide.
The law is clear: the government cannot directly withdraw cases that are under judicial consideration. Consent from both the concerned court and the victims is required. Because the OAG’s decision appears person-centric rather than offense-centric, legal experts warn it could set a troubling precedent.
Section 116(a) of the National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act, 2074 BS explicitly lists money laundering as an offense that cannot be withdrawn. Section 116(c) further states that if withdrawing a case adversely affects an individual’s property rights, it cannot proceed without that person’s consent.
If a lower court orders the withdrawal of Lamichhane’s case, the victims retain the right to seek a review in a higher court.
Lamichhane’s most complex legal battle is unfolding in Rupandehi. Based on an investigation by the Butwal Area Police Office, the Rupandehi District Government Attorney’s Office filed a cooperative fraud case against 28 defendants.
The case alleges that Rs 861.82 million belonging to 1,831 depositors was misappropriated. Investigators found that over Rs 142.9 million from the cooperative was invested in Gorkha Media Network Pvt Ltd, with Rs 20 million issued as a loan in Lamichhane’s name, according to the charge sheet.
An internal order signed by Attorney General Bhandari states that removing the organized crime and money laundering charges—while retaining fraud and cooperative fraud charges—could help keep alive the possibility of reconciliation and the return of depositors’ money. The order cites Section 36 of the National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act, 2074 BS as the legal basis for amending the charges.
A letter reflecting this decision, signed on January 14, was sent to the district government attorneys’ offices handling Lamichhane’s cases. Based on the letter, applications seeking charge amendments have already been filed in court.
The OAG’s order states that Lamichhane has claimed he was prosecuted with political vendetta. Taking this claim into consideration—and prioritizing the rights and interests of victim depositors—the OAG approved amendments to remove the organized crime and money laundering charges in cases pending before the district courts of Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi, and Parsa, while retaining fraud-related charges.
As the Supreme Court now demands original evidence to justify these decisions, the case has become a critical test—not just for Lamichhane, but for the integrity of Nepal’s prosecutorial system itself.
