IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 753 of 2007() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2006 IN CMP.638/2006 IN CC.127/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------- V.P.FIROZ, V.P.HOUSE, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY MR.T.K.AJITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: ---------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI, BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY MR.RITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ========================== Crl.R.P.No.753 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 ORDER The first accused in C.C.No.127/2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, is the revision petitioner. He along with other accused were facing prosecution for offence u/s.342, 353, 332, 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. The Deputy Director of Prosecution filed a petition as C.M.P.3638/2006 seeking an order to withdraw the prosecution. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 8.12.2006 dismissed the petition. The relevant portion of the order impugned reads as follows: “I feel that there are materials to attract a prima facie case against the accused. In a prosecution like this especially when the victims are police people who are expected to discharge their duties for maintaining law and order, withdrawal of the prosecution on flimsy grounds will definitely affect the morale of the police force and the courts cannot support the Govt. for that purpose. One cannot forget about the victim in a criminal prosecution. In the light of the observations I arrive at the finding that this is a case where permission for withdrawal has to be declined. Hence I find that the CMP is to be dismissed”. Crl.R.P.No.753/2007 2 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 3. The relevant portion of the order quoted above would show that the only reason stated by the learned Magistrate is that there is a prima facie case against the accused and withdrawal of the prosecution on flimsy grounds would definitely affect the morale of the police force and that the courts cannot support for that purpose. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the petition reads as follows: “I have verified the case file and applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that group meeting of the congress party ended in clash and since there was law order problem the police party interfered and thereby sustained injury to the Policemen. It is submitted that there was no evidence to gather the criminal intention on the part of the accused to inflict injuries.” 4. In Sheonandan Paswan V. State of Bihar & others (AIR 1987 SC 877) the Apex Court held that: Crl.R.P.No.753/2007 3 “when an application under Section 321 is made, it is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. What the court has to see is whether the application is made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.” 5. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the case on hand and going by the paragraph 3, 4 & 5 of the petition submitted by the Deputy Director of Prosecution, I find that Public Prosecutor had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and had come to a conclusion that the incident alleged occurred at the group meeting of the congress party that ended in clash and since there was law and order problem the police party interfered and thereby sustained injury to the policemen and that there was no criminal intention on the part of the accused. There was nothing on record to show that the statement of the Public Prosecutor lacks bonafides or that the application was to thwart or stifle the process of law. Whereas it would show that the application was made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice. The trial court Crl.R.P.No.753/2007 4 instead of searching whether the application was made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice it probed into the question as to whether there was evidence to prosecute the accused. In this view of the matter, the court below went wrong. Consequently the order impugned is vitiated. I find that the application was made by the Public Prosecutor in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that the petition was to thwart or stifle the process of law. I fail to find any reason to reject the petition submitted by the Deputy Director of prosecution. It is liable to be allowed. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the order impugned the petition C.M.P.No.3638/2006 in C.C.No.127/2004 before the lower court would stand allowed. The prosecution would stand withdrawn and the accused would stand acquitted u/s.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. dvs