IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2729 of 2003() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/09/2003 IN CRMP. 2256/2002 IN CC.401/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MOHAMMED ALI, S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, VELLATTU HOUSE, VENGAD. P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DIST. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.V. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smvd N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 2729 of 2003. ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.401/2000. First respondent is the defacto complainant in that case. The learned JFCM, Perinthalmanna acquitted the accused u/s 321(b) Cr.P.C. The case against the accused was charge sheeted by the police under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 452, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. In this revision petition the State of Kerala alone is impleaded as respondent. The accused in that case who were acquitted by the learned Magistrate u/s 321(b) of Cr.P.C. are not seen arrayed as respondents. Be that as it may, the question is whether the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was justified in seeking permission of the learned Magistrate for withdrawal of the case u/s 321(b) Cr.P.C. The impugned order shows that the defacto complainant had raised objection before the learned Magistrate and he was also heard in the matter. The Crl.R.P. No. 2729 of 2003 2 learned Magistrate has observed that it was a case and counter case and that learned Assistant Prosecutor sought permission of the court to withdraw the case and counter case and both petitions were allowed resulting in the acquittal of both cases u/s 321(b) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that in the case in which he is the defacto complainant, the offences are u/s 324 and 326 IPC whereas in the case filed against him, the main offence is only u/s 324 IPC. However, that is not a reason to hold whether learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had applied his mind or not seeking withdrawal of the case. On going through the order it appears that the incident arose because the revision petitioner and accused in the other cases belonged to two political parties. They were neighbours also. The withdrawal was in public interest. Order of acquittal was passed 8 years back. The learned Magistrate had gone through the reasons put forward by the learned Assistant Crl.R.P. No. 2729 of 2003 3 Public Prosecutor to see whether the withdrawal was in public interest or not. It seems no private complaint was filed by the revision petitioner against the accused persons separately. Any way in view of what have been stated above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision petition is hence dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd