IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1090 of 2002() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2002 IN CRMP. 1477 /2002 IN ST.337/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VASU, S/O. SANKU, NADUMATTATHIL VEEDU, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, AREEKARA KARA. 2. C.L. JOSEPH, S/O. GEORGE LUKOSE, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, PATTITHANAM KARA. 3. THOMAS JOB, S/O. JOB, PANTHERIVELIL VEEDU, CHIRAKADAVU VILLAGE, CHIRAKADAVU KARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1090 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 ORDER In this revision petition by accused 1 to 3 the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor dated August 2, 2002 in Crl.M.P.No.1477/2002 in S.T.Case No.337/2001 refusing to grant permission to withdraw the case is under challenge. 2. The revision petitioners are accused persons in S.T.Case No.337/2001 before the lower court. They were charged under Sections 283, 353 , 294 (b) , 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation against them is that on December 23, 2001 at 7.15 p.m. accused 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to CW1, the police constable who was doing traffic control duty at Varisseri junction , that accused persons abused him and prevented him from discharging his duty as a public servant and also caused obstruction to the public way by stopping the car in which they were travelling and that thereby committed the above said offences. 3. After filing the charge sheet, the Assistant Public Crl.R.P.No.1090/02 Page numbers Prosecutor representing the State filed the above Crl. M.P. seeking permission to withdraw the case. The trial court after considering all the aspects refused to grant permission sought for, by the impugned order. The accused persons have come up in revision challenging the correctness of the said order. 4. After hearing the counsel for the revision petitioners, I felt that CW1 , the defacto complainant should also be heard before granting permission to withdraw the case. In pursuance to the notice, CW1 appeared in person on 11-11-2009. He submits that he has no objection in withdrawing the case. Therefore, the Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the lower court in Crl.M.P.No.1477/2002 in S.T.No.337/2001 is hereby set aside and Crl.M.P.No.1477/2002 before the trial court is allowed. The prosecution is permitted to withdraw the case pending before the trial court. Send the records along with this case to the lower court. Revision petitioner/accused shall appear before the trial court on or before 15-12-2009. On appearance of the accused before the trial Crl.R.P.No.1090/02 Page numbers court, the trial court shall close the case as withdrawn. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1090/02 Page numbers