The Court held that the revision petition is maintainable as Section 321 Cr.P.C. rests with the prosecution but requires court consent, and the accused can challenge the rejection of such withdrawal. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.544 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 302/2016 DATED 17-03-2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBA
CRIME NO.110/2007 OF Thaliparamba Police Station , Kannur
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:
1 K.NIJAS
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.NISSAR, BISMILLA QUARTERS,MELE CHOVVA, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM,KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 P.MASHROOK AHAMMED NOUFAL S/O.AHAMMED, KOLEKKARA HOUSE,SYED NAGAR,TALIPARAMBA P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 K.K.MUHAMMED MAMMAD S/O.UMMER, KALARIKKANDY HOUSE, KUTTOOR,MATHAMANGALAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 K.K.SHABEER S/O.MUHAMMEDALI,KANATHIL HOUSE, NEAR MADRASSA,TALIPARAMBA P.O,TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
5 P.M.ISHAK S/O.ABDULLA,PALAKKODAN HOUSE,MARATHAKKAD,KUPPAM P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,KANNUR DISTRICT.
6 C.SHAKKEER
S/O.MAHAMOOD HAJI,CHULLIYODAN HOUSE, KUPPAM P.O,TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.544/16
2
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682 031 THROUGH S.H.O TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.544/16
3
ORDER
During the course of trial of accused for the
alleged commission of offence under Sections 143,
147, 148, 332, 353 r/w Section 149 IPC, the
Prosecutor (Assistant Public Prosecutor) sought permission to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. It was rejected by the trial court, against which the accused came up.
the State Government and the prosecution. No
challenge was raised by the State Government against
the rejection of the permission under Section 321 Cr.P.C. against which the accused cannot maintain a revision. The privilege under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is the prerogative of the prosecution and the State Government subject to the consent of the court in which the accused has no role to play.
The revision is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
SPV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused has locus standi to challenge the rejection of the State's request to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C.?
K.NIJAS
STATE OF KERALA
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
