Kerala High Court
Salmi vs The State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2018
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2564 of 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 222/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-
III, MANJERI DATED 06-10-2012
CRIME NO. 87/2010 OF Vengara Police Station, Malappuram
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :
1 SALMI,
S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, ANJUKANDAN HOUSE, VALIYORA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABDUL RAZAQ,
S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, ANJUKANDAN HOUSE, VALIYORA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 ABDUL NAZAR,
S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, ANJUKANDAN HOUSE, VALIYORA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 SHAMSUDHEEN,
S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, ANJUKANDAN HOUSE, VALIYORA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5 ABDUL RAHIMAN,
S/O. YUSAF, VALIYORA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6 HAMZA,
S/O. MUHAMMED, VALIYORA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
7 KUNHIMOIDEEN,
VALIYORA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SRI.K.RAKESH
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2564 of 2012
2
RESPONDENT/STATE :
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31,
THROUGH THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU (SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2564 of 2012
3
ORDER
The revision petitioners herein are seven among the nine accused in S.C.No.222 of 2011 of the Court of Session, Manjeri. They are aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Manjeri in CMP No.1201 of 2012 on 06.10.2012 disallowing the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the said prosecution.
2. The learned trial Judge disallowed the request for withdrawal on the ground that such withdrawal would not serve any public purpose, and that the grounds stated by the learned Public Prosecutor for withdrawal are not at all sufficient for orders under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The State has not challenged the order.
3. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the application made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the court below, I find that the request for withdrawal was rightly disallowed by the learned trial Judge. The prosecution case is that the accused, belonging to two different political groups, committed affray causing annoyance and disturbance to the public in connection with some political dispute, at about 4.00 p.m. on 13.03.2010 at Puthanangadi, and when the police party led by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vengara intervened for Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2564 of 2012 4 maintenance of law and order at the scene of incident, the accused assaulted the police party, attacked them, and in the said incident, the Sub Inspector of Police sustained a grievous hurt.
4. On a perusal of the application made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I find that he has not stated any definite ground or reason for withdrawal from prosecution, except that it is for maintaining the good relationship between the public and the police. I fail to understand how withdrawal from prosecution in this case, where Police Officers are the victims, would strengthen the relationship between the police and the public, or maintain peace and harmony in between the police and the public.
5. It is well settled that the Court can permit withdrawal under Section 321 Cr.P.C. only if such withdrawal would serve some public interest. If the Court finds reason to believe that such withdrawal would serve the interest of the accused alone, the Court cannot allow such withdrawal. It is the function of the police machinery to maintain law and order, and to take all measures for the prevention of breach of peace. If the Police Officers are attacked in the said process, and if a crime is registered against the assailants, withdrawal from such prosecution would convey a Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2564 of 2012 5 wrong message, and it would definitely be against the public interest. I find from a reading of the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor that he thought of applying for withdrawal for the benefit of the accused alone. That the case may end in acquittal is not a ground to allow withdrawal from prosecution. I find that the request for withdrawal was rightly disallowed by the trial court.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioners can raise all their factual and legal objections and contentions before the trial court, when the case goes to trial. The understanding, if any, between the accused and the victims is also not the concern of the court under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Let the case go to trial as scheduled.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
rkj JUDGE