IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3418 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRMP.4067/2007 IN CC.755/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ MRS.MINI P.N., W/O.J.DAS, ADVOCATE, ENRA-4, T.C.1/2006, 'PRATHIBHA', EDASSERY NAGAR, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- S.I. OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRRP. NO.3418/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT DTD. 13.6.2007. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.3418 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -III, Thiruvananthapuram declining the permission sought for by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution in C.C No.755/2005, in which the petitioner with two others proceeded for offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 323, 294(b), 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned magistrate, not being satisfied with the reasons stated by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to seek permission for withdrawal of the prosecution in the case, turned down the request. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/second accused in the case challenges that order filing this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned public prosecutor. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner (A2) with some others committed trespass upon a ladies hostel, intimidated the warden of that hostel, outraged her modesty and thereby committed the offences imputed. An inmate lodged in that hostel was directed to be shown the door by the petitioners and her associates. That being refused by the de facto Crl. R.P No.3418 OF 2009 2 complainant, the warden, the occurrence took place, is the prosecution case. Crime registered on the complaint of the aforesaid warden, after investigation, led to the indictment of the petitioner and the others named in the case for the offences referred to above. 3. Petitioner is stated to be a practicing advocate. Counsel for the petitioner submits that A1 is also an advocate practicing in the courts of Thiruvananthapuram. There is no justification for declining the request made by the prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution of the case, is the submission of the counsel. The records of the case were called for to examine the propriety, correctness and legality of the order challenged in the revision. After going through the records, I find that the learned magistrate has turned down the application moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case without issuing notice to the de facto complainant. In the given facts of the case, I find that a proper order on the request made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case require hearing the de facto complainant as well since the injuries purported to have been caused against her had led to the registration of the crime. I do not wish to express any opinion over the conclusion formed by the magistrate on the merits of the Crl. R.P No.3418 OF 2009 3 application moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal as fresh inquiry thereof is warranted after giving notice and hearing the de facto complainant. Setting aside the impugned order, the magistrate is directed to give notice to the de facto complainant on the application moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution, and, after hearing all parties, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the de facto complainant and also the accused, the magistrate shall pass orders afresh on the request made for withdrawal of the case in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for her appearance through counsel before the magistrate. So far as the inquiry on the withdrawal petition, if any such request is made for appearance of the petitioner though counsel, the court below shall permit her to do so. But, in the event of her trial, if any request is made for exemption as provided under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, it shall be disposed of on its merits. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge