Kerala High Court
Rahseed vs Nil on 6 October, 2012
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 80 of 2013 (D)
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC.443/2010 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
(AD HOC)III, MANJERI DATED 06/10/2012
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------------------------
1. RAHSEED,
S/O UMMER,UNNIYAPPENTE PURAKKAL, NIRAMARUTHOOR P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. FAROOQ,
S/O ABDULLAKUTTY,NIRAMARUTHOOR P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. SATHAR,
S/O ASSAINAR,PALLIKKAL PUTHIYAKADAPPURAM UNNIYAL,
MALAPPURM DISTRICT.
4. FAIZAL,
S/O UMMER,PARAVANNA P.O., ALINCHUVADU,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5. SALAM,
S/O MUHAMMED,KAKKANTE PURAKKAL,PUDIYAKADAPPURAM,
UNNIYAL,MALAPPURM DISTRICT.
6. RAFI,
S/O YAHU,PUDIYAKADAPPURAM P.O.,UNNIYL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
7. MANSOOR,
S/O HAMZA,KAMBIVALAPPIL HOUSE,PUDIYAKADAPPURAM,
UNNIYAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
8. ISMAYIL,
S/O SAIDUMUHAMMED,KOYAMUNTE PURAKKAL,PUDIYAKDAPPURAM,
UNNIYAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
9. ABDUL SALAM,
S/O MUHAMMED,PAKARKADAVATH,PUDIYAKADAPPURAM,
UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SRI.K.RAKESH
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 80 of 2013 (D)
COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
KOCHI-31 - THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 80 of 2013 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR U/S.321 OF Cr.P.C. DTD.10/8/2012.
ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION TO WITHDRAW S.C.No.463/09
ISSUED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF
KERALA, DTD. 11/11/2012.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
True copy
P.A. to Judge
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.80 of 2013
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2013
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.159 of 2010 of Tanur Police Station. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the public prosecutor who conducting S.C.No.443 of 2010 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Manjeri has filed an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. as Crl.M.P.No.1202 of 2012, to withdraw above sessions case, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same. Hence, challenging the above order dated 06/10/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1202 of 2012 in S.C.No.443 of 2010 the accused therein preferred this revision petition.
2. In the impugned order the learned Judge has found that the allegation against the petitioners/accused is that on 31/03/2010 at about 5.30 p.m. all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly Crl.R.P.No.80/2013 : 2 : weapon like iron pipes and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they obstructed the autorikshaw of CW.1 and made attempt to commit murder of CW.1 by beating him on his head and right knee with an iron pipe. The learned Judge has also found that, though he had gone through the averment in the petition filed by learned Public Prosecutor, there is absolutely nothing to hold that withdrawal from prosecution is for the public interest or in the interest of administration of justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge disallowed the petition denying permission for withdrawing the case against the petitioners.
3. Suffice to say, against the above order of the court below the prosecution has not chosen to file any revision petition. But the accused, against whom S.C.No.443 of 2010 pending, preferred this revision petition.
4. Along with this revision petition the petitioners have produced Anneuxre-A copy of the petition in Crl.R.P.No.80/2013 : 3 : Crl.M.P.No.1202 of 2010 dated 10/08/2012 filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in the trial court and also produced Annexure-B which is no objection issued by the Government of Kerala to withdraw S.C.No.463 of 2009. The learned counsel submitted that the place of occurrence is an area of fishermen community and unless the above case is withdrawn there is likelihood of breach of peace and violence. On a perusal of Annexure-A, I am satisfied that the learned Judge of the trial court is justified in his finding that, absolutely nothing to hold that withdrawal from prosecution is for the public interest or in the interest of administration of justice. In Annexure-A application, even the facts and circumstances, which lead to the incident, which is the subject matter of Crime No.159 of 2010 of Tanur Police Station, are not stated. From the impugned order it appears that the accused nine in numbers themselves formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapon like iron pipes and accordingly attacked CW.1 with an Crl.R.P.No.80/2013 : 4 : intention to commit murder of CW.1 and by using iron pipe inflicting injuries on the head of CW.1 and on his right knee. On a perusal of Annexure -A, according to me, there is nothing to show that the learned Public Prosecutor has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances involved and the other attended circumstance to justify his opinion so as to withdraw the serious crime like the present one and he failed to show how the withdrawal of the same is for the sake of public interest or for the interest of administration of justice. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition.
The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A. to Judge