IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1905 of 2009(B) ------------------------- CC.1773/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RADHAKRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/OKOCHU RAMAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GENERATION DEVISION, IDAMALAYAR, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, UDAYANOOR, MADATHIL NADA ROAD, NANANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME (L) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, GR.II, THODUPUZHA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.1905 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the sole accused in a pending prosecution registered as C.C.No.1773 of 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothamangalam. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under the Factories' Acts and Rules. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. The petitioner had filed Ext.P4 application before the 3rd respondent seeking withdrawal of the prosecution against him. That request was forwarded to the 4th respondent by the 3rd respondent and that petition has ultimately reached the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P6 had called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural. That report is necessary for the 2nd respondent to consider the application for withdrawal submitted by the petitioner. That report has not been received by the 2nd respondent yet. In these circumstances no decision is taken on the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of his complaint. The case was registered as early as in 2005 and the matter is likely to come up W.P(C). No.1905 of 2009 2 for trial shortly. The short grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the unnecessary lapses, the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal is not being considered by the competent authorities. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the 6th respondent to submit his report and the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for withdrawal. 3. Needles to say, such an application must be considered and disposed of expeditiously. The question is not whether the petitioner has any right to get the case against him withdrawn. But the request having been submitted to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent having called for a report from the 6th respondent, it is necessary in the fitness of things and in fairness that the 6th respondent must forward his report to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent must take necessary action on receipt of such report. I am not persuaded to agree nor has such a specific request been made before me to quash C.C.No.1773 of 2005 or for any direction to postpone the trial in that case. But I am satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner must be considered by the 2nd respondent with the aid of a report from the 6th respondent as expeditiously as possible. W.P(C). No.1905 of 2009 3 4. I am not satisfied that any specific or definite direction need be issued. I am satisfied that this Writ Petition can be dismissed with the specific observation that I expect the 2nd respondent to take appropriate and expeditious action on Ext.P4 application after expeditiously securing the necessary report from the 6th respondent. 5. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above specific observations. 6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-