Kerala High Court
Vijayan vs Surena on 18 December, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2017/5TH JYAISHTA, 1939
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1749 OF 2008 ( )
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP NO.873/07 AND CMP NO.9320/07
IN CP NO.5/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
ETTUMANUR DATED 18-12-2007
PETITIONER/ 2ND PETITIONER/ CHARGE WITNESS NO.2:
----------------------------------------------
VIJAYAN, AGED 61 YEARS,S/O.GOVINDAN,
KIZHAKKEKALLUVELIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA KARA,, KAIPUZHA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED & STATE:
------------------------------------------
1. SURENA, D/O.SASIDHARAN, ZARGE VILLA,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR.
2. SASIDHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, ZARGE VILLA,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR.
3. RAJU, S/O. GOPALAN, GOKULAM HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR.
4. RAHAMONY SASIDHARAN, W/O.SASIDHARAN,
ZARGE VILLA, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR.
5. K.K.DASAPPAN, S/O.KUNJAN, KALLUVELIL
HOUSE, KAIPUZHA KARA, KAIPUZHA VILLAGE.
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRRP NO.1749 OF 2008
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CP NO.5/07.
ANNEXURE 2:COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER RECORDED UNDER
SECTION 161 CR.P.C.
ANNEXURE 3:COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER RECORDED
UNDER SECTION 161 CR.P.C.
ANNEXURE 4:COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHIBIN, WHO IS CHARGE WITNESS
NO.5, RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CR.P.C.
ANNEXURE 5:COPY OF THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
ANNEXURE 6:COPY OF THE CMP NO.8732/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS
BROTHER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
ANNEXURE 7:COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 18/12/2007 IN CMP NO.8732/07
AND CMP NO.9320/07 IN CP NO.5/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE, ETTUMANOOR.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKV
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J.
===================
CRL.R.P.No.1749 of 2008
=======================
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2017
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed against the common order dated 18.12.2007 in CMP Nos.8732/2007 and 9320/2007 in CP No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ettumanoor.
2. The facts relevant for consideration of this revision petition is as follows:-
A crime was registered as Crime No.31/2006 of Ettumanoor Police Station for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a charge was filed before the concerned court arraying five accused. The police charge was that Suneesh committed suicide due to the abetment of the accused persons. It was the case of the prosecution that the 1st accused as well as the deceased Suneesh was in love. The 2nd accused, who is the CRRP NO.1749 Of 2008 2 father of the 1st accused agreed to give her in marriage to the deceased Suneesh and it was also decided to conduct a marriage fixation ceremony on 17.11.2005 at Vrundavan Hall at Ettumanoor, but the brides party withdrew from the same. Due to the said mental agony, Suneesh committed suicide by putting his head on the rail on 19.01.2006. The charge was accepted by the court and numbered as Committal Proceeding No.5/2007. While the said Committal Proceeding was pending, it appears that this Court stayed the proceeding and thereafter the stay lifted. CW1 and CW2, who are none other than the parents of deceased Suneesh filed CMP No.8732/2007 in advance, objecting a withdrawal petition. It appears that, they had information regarding the move of the prosecution. Thereafter the prosecution filed CMP No.9320/2007 for withdrawal. The court below first considered the jurisdiction to consider/entertain withdrawal petition. Relying upon the decision reported in Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Special Police [AIR 1980 SCC CRRP NO.1749 Of 2008 3 1510], the court below considered the application and allowed CMP 9320/2007, whereas dismissed the CMP No.8732/2007. Aggrieved by the said common order, this revision petition filed.
3. When this revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted before me that in this case the court below acted against the settled principles of law. In support of the said contention, counsel brought to the notice of this Court Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar and Others reported in [(1987) 1 SCC 288].
4. It is the submission that when the deceased and the grooms party went to the house of the 1st accused, she categorically said "to go and put your head on rail". It is a clear instigation to commit suicide and as such the withdrawal is bad in law, much less to say that the withdrawal is not for any public good or in the interest of administration of justice.
5. Heard the Public Prosecutor.
6. Learned Prosecutor submitted before me that it is CRRP NO.1749 Of 2008 4 true that the deceased and 1st accused were in love for about seven years. The said fact revealed during investigation. It is also true that a final report was filed. But at the moment, the prosecution understood that the continuance of the prosecution is not warranted, resorted to Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the submission that as per the prosecution case, the death occurred only after two months of the "withdrawal" by the girl. With the passage of time and all other circumstances including the fact that the deceased was a youth, the prosecution decided to move an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court also considered all these aspects and came to a conclusion that no purpose will be served by continuing prosecution. Hence in the interest of justice permission granted to withdraw the case.
After hearing the counsel, I perused the materials available in this criminal revision petition. After going through the petition, as well as considering the back ground of the CRRP NO.1749 Of 2008 5 case, it can only come to a conclusion that no illegality committed by the court below. In the impugned order in paragraph 6, the court held as follows:-
"Hence trial of the case is wasting of time and no other purpose will serve and thereby given permission to withdraw the case as prayed for by the prosecution."
Surely in this case, the person who committed suicide was a youth. That also about two months after the withdrawal of the 1st accused from the earlier stand. Considering the totality of the case, I feel that the decision cannot be considered as perverse, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the petition.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE SKV