Kerala High Court
Puthussery Preman @ Patteri Preman vs The State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2018
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1190 of 2018
IN SC 57/2014 of SUB COURT, KANNUR DATED 06-03-2018
IN CP 79/2013 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANNUR
CRIME NO. 421/2013 OF Valappatanam Police Station , Kannur
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-
1 PUTHUSSERY PREMAN @ PATTERI PREMAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN, VADESWARAM, AROLI PO, KANNUR DISTRICT
2 KUTTAPPI @ JAYESH,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. MANOJ KUMAR, KALLAKKUDIYAN,
VADESWARAM COLONY, AROLI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT
3 SUKESH.N.,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN, NAMBRADATH HOUSE, KATYAM, AROLI P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT
4 ANEESHAN @ ANEESH P.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. MUKUNDAN, PATTERI HOUSE, CHALIL, AROLI P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT
5 KOTTA PRADEEPAN,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAMBU, THURUTHIKKOVVAL, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR
DISTRICT
6 BIJOY,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. BALAN, KATYAM COLONY, AROLI P.O., KANNUR
DISTRICT
7 MAHESH.A,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. JANARDHANAN, ARINGLAYAN HOUSE, CHALIL, AROLI
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1190 of 2018
2
8 KUTTAN @ VIJESH,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. JANARDHANAN, ARINGALAN HOUSE, CHALIL AROLI P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SMT.D.N.NISHANI
M. SURESHKUMAR
SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :-
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 035
BY SMT.K.K. SHEEBA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1190 of 2018
3
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No. 57 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur. They are charged with having committed the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 324, 332 and 353 IPC. The allegation is that they armed with deadly weapons formed themselves into an un- lawful assembly and assaulted the police officers who were in duty at the place of occurrence. The public prosecutor filed an application for permission to withdraw from the prosecution under section 321 Cr.P.C. That was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. This is challenged.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Filing an application under section 321 Cr.P.C by the Public Prosecutor does not confer any right on the accused not to be proceeded against. In this case it is stated that there was a clash between workers of two political parties. The Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1190 of 2018 4 accused who also were among them assaulted the police officers. In the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor it is stated that to maintain peace in the locality it is necessary to withdraw from the prosecution. I do not know how withdrawal from the prosecution will help maintain peace in the locality. Attacking police officers is increase in the state. If such cases are allowed to be withdrawn, it will certainly affect the morale of the police. It is not in public interest to allow the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from such cases.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHTEW, JUDGE //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE SMA