IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1050 of 2004(A) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2004 IN CMP 722/2004 IN CC.139/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- SRI.C.K.SHEREEF, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, SHAHIDA MANZIL, THENHIPALAM AMSOM, DESOM, CHELARI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENHIPALAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- Crl. M.C. No.1050 of 2004 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner, who is accused No.1 in C.C.No.139 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi, has filed this Crl. M.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure A2 order dated 6/2/2004 in C.M.P. No.722/2004, by which the court below did not accord permission to the prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution. 2. There are six accused in the case. The prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a U.D. Clerk in Thenhipalam Panchayath Office. On 27/6/2000, when the de facto complaint went to the Panchayath Office, an obstruction was caused by the members of Youth League. A Dharna was being held by them. Three workers of the Youth League named in the F.I.R. intimated to the de facto complainant that he could enter into the office after some time. After some time, another employee of the Panchayath Office entered into the office through the rear side of the compound. The de facto complainant Crl. M.C. No.1050/ 2004 2 thought that there was no problem for him also to enter into the office and he went inside the office. Nobody obstructed him at that time. After about 15 minutes, the accused came to the Panchayath Office, abused the de facto complainant and he was brought out forcibly from the Panchayath Office. He was prevented from entering into the office. The de facto complainant waited till the Dharna was over. The de facto complainant was permitted thereafter to enter into the office. After the de facto complainant went inside the office, the accused persons pulled out the de facto complainant from the office and brought out of the office. Though the police personnel attempted to prevent the same, they did not succeed. The de facto complainant was manhandled by the accused. 3. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayath also filed a petition before the police narrating the incident and also stating that the Panchayath has sustained monetary loss on account of the damage caused to the staircase of the Panchayath Office. As per the estimate, the loss sustained to the Panchayath was Rs.4,200/-. Crl. M.C. No.1050/ 2004 3 4. The Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a report under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for consent of the court for withdrawal from prosecution. The court below, by the order impugned, held that on perusal of the records, it is seen that the allegation is that the accused used criminal force to deter the de facto complaint, a public servant, from discharging his duties. It was also held by the learned Magistrate that no public interest would be protected by permitting the prosecution to withdraw from the prosecution. It was noticed that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not properly applied his mind before filing the report. The only ground stated for withdrawal is that the case involves political incidents and the Government was pleased to withdraw from the prosecution of the case. It is also stated in the report that the Panchayath had not taken any action in the matter, which is factually incorrect. 5. The court below has stated cogent reasons for not granting permission for withdrawal from prosecution. I do not think that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for Crl. M.C. No.1050/ 2004 4 invoking the inherent power of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if Crl M.C. is treated as a revision, I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not established by the petitioner to justify interference in the order impugned. There is no illegality, irregularity or lack of jurisdiction attributable to the order passed by the court below. Crl. M.C is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm