IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 132 of 2011() ------------------------ SC.769/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CP.216/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 ---------------------------------- 1. BASHEER A., SHIBU MANZIL, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MARIAM BEEVI, W/O.BASHEER, SHIBU MANZIL, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHIBU.B., S/O.BASHEER, SHIBU MANZIL, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.H.JAWHAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUSHAMA, NITHYATHA, AADHINAADU P.O. KULASEKHARAPURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 518. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.132 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.143 of 2008 of Karunagappally Police Station for offences punishable under Section 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, “the Act”). Case is that on 09.02.2008 at about 8 a.m. petitioners voluntarily insulted respondent No.2, the defacto complainant in public view calling caste name and uttered obscene words at him. According to the petitioners, no offence and much less the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out. 2. Though various contentions are raised in the petition as to non- application of offences attributed to the petitioners when the matter came up for hearing learned counsel submitted that petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition without prejudice to the right of petitioners to take appropriate defence before the trial court at the appropriate stage. 3. Having heard learned counsel and the Public Prosecutor I am inclined to allow the request. Crl.M.C.No.132/2011 2 Resultantly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioners to take appropriate defence in the trial court at the appropriate stage as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks