Download Judicial Decision on Prosecution Withdrawal in a Criminal Case and more Schemes and Mind Maps Law in PDF only on Docsity!
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 1407 of 2013 ()
CMP 16845/2012 IN CC 2243/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PUNALUR CRIME NO. 104/2009 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 24 :
SHOAM C.J., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. CHITRANGATHAN, CHITHIRA VEEDU, BAHARATHIPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YEROOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: bp**
**Crl.MC.No. 1407 of 2013 ()
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-10- ISSUED BY GOVT. WITH NO. 62563/L2/11/HOME. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-1-13 IN C.M. P. NO. 16845/12 IN C.C. NO. 2243/2009 OF JFCM-I, PUNALUR. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 2234/2009 BEFORE JFCM-I, PUNALUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp**
Crl.M.C. No. 1407 of 2013 - 2 - 3.While the case was pending trial, the Public Prosecutor concerned had filed an application before the Court seeking withdrawal of the prosecution on the basis of Annexure-A1 order of the Government but the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-A order. The said order is under challenge. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel that Section 321 gives a general executive discretion to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution subject to the consent of the court. In the instant case, the application was filed by the prosecutor on the ground of insufficiency and meager nature of reliable evidence that was available and the learned Magistrate had erred in refusing consent.
- The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would
Crl.M.C. No. 1407 of 2013 - 3 - refute the contentions and would submit that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the application after independently applying his mind and taking note of the public interest involved. It is further submitted that interest of administration of justice is the paramount consideration for grant of consent for withdrawal of prosecution. Further it is submitted that the trial in the instant case has already commenced and out of 25 accused who were charged, only the petitioner has challenged the impugned order. 6.In Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2014 (10) SCC 380] the Apex Court after an elaborate survey of previous precedents have observed that withdrawal of prosecution should advance the cause of justice and serve public interest. It was further held that there should be independent application of mind on the
Crl.M.C. No. 1407 of 2013 - 5 - In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to take up and dispose of C.C.No. 2243 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE Ps/22/9/
Crl.M.C. No. 1407 of 2013 - 6 -
