IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3959 of 2010() --------------------------------------- SC.418/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI CP.21/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- SIDDIQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PERIMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3959 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 28th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.P.21/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram. As the petitioner and fifth accused were absconding, case against them was split up and refiled as C.P.21/2009 and the case against the remaining three accused was committed to Sessions Court, Manjeri. Sessions Court took it on file as S.C.418/2009 and made over for trial to Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc-III) Manjeri. When that case was pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Annexure-E petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for permission to withdraw the prosecution Crmc 3957/10 2 stating that more than two years have been elapsed after the incident and the case is a sequel to a bus accident, between the local people and bus owner regarding the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the victim and pendency of the case will not advance smooth relation between the local people and the bus management and Public Prosecutor has considered the matter and he was satisfied that cause of justice and public policy will not be advanced by prosecuting the accused and therefore decided to withdraw the case and sought permission of the court to withdraw the prosecution. Accepting Annexure-E petition by Annexure-F order learned Sessions Judge granted permission to withdraw the prosecution. Thus the sessions case was withdrawn. Case against the petitioner and fifth accused was Crmc 3957/10 3 not withdrawn as it was pending before the committal Court. Second accused filed this petition to quash the proceedings contending that the benefit of Annexure-D decision of the Government to withdraw the case should be available to all the accused and not to the accused in the Sessions case alone and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to ascertain how the benefit granted to accused 1,3 and 4, pursuant to Annexure-D decision of the Government granting permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case can be denied to the accused, whose case is Crmc 3957/10 4 pending before the committal Court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that necessary orders may be passed. 4. It is under Annexure-E petition filed under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Public Prosecutor sought permission to withdraw the case against accused 1,3 and 4. Annexure-D is the order of the Government, granting approval to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution, with leave of the Court. Annexure-E petition filed by the Public Prosecutor establishes that reason for withdrawal of the prosecution is applicable only to those accused who were facing trial before the Sessions Court. It should necessarily apply to all the accused including those accused whose case is pending before the committal Court. In such circumstances, when Crmc 3957/10 5 case against accused 1,3 and 4 were already withdrawn on Annexure-E petition filed by the Public Prosecutor, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution against the remaining two accused whose case is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, at the committal stage. Petition is allowed. C.P.21/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.