Dismissed

Subramanian Unni @ G.S.Unni v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC13 Oct 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/13/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by an accused challenging the Magistrate's refusal to allow withdrawal of prosecution. The Court held the accused lacked locus-standi as withdrawal is the prosecution's prerogative and confirmed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed; the impugned order is confirmed; and the Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously.

Subramanian Unni @ G.S.Unni Vs State of Kerala and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 21ST ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 13 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2010 IN CMP NOS.4775/2010 &
4776/2010 IN CC NO.153/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS-I, HARIPAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUBRAMANIAN UNNI @ G.S.UNNI,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALAN UNNI, BHARAMNANI (REVATHI),
KANDALLUR VILALGE, PUTHIYAVILA MURI.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1.REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA-1.

¶13

3 ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GRADE I JFMC, HARIPAD

¶14

4SUDHAMANI,
AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O.SOMAN
VAZHAPPALLY KAVU VEEDU, PUTHIYAVILA MURI,
KANDALLUR VILLAGE, PATTOLI MARKET P.O.690531.

¶15

BY ADVS.SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR PP SMT SEETHA S

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.R.P.No.13/2011

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

Dated this the 13^th day of October,2023

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petition is filed challenging the order in C.M.P.No.4775/2010 passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Haripad, dismissing the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor – the third respondent – under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to withdraw C.C.No.153/2009.

¶24

Brief facts:

¶25

The revision petitioner has averred in the memorandum of revision petition that he is the accused in Crime No.152/2008 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, which led to the registration of C.C.No.153/2009. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that, on 13.05.2008, at about 12 pm, he trespassed into the bedroom of the fourth respondent

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.13/2011

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

and assaulted her, pushed her son to the ground and uttered obscene words. Thus, he has committed the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Police registered Annexure A1 FIR and after investigation, filed Annexure A2 final report. As the revision petitioner is a distinguished person of that locality, he submitted Annexure A8 representation to the Government of Kerala, to withdraw C.C.No.153/2009. The Government of Kerala, by Annexure A9 order, informed the District Collector, Alappuzha, that the Government has no objection to withdraw C.C.No.153/2009, with the leave of the Court, and directed him to instruct the third respondent to withdraw the case. Pursuant to Annexure A9 order, the third respondent filed C.M.P. No.4775/2010 to withdraw C.C. No.153/2009. But, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, dismissed the application. The impugned order is arbitrary,

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.13/2011

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

unjustifiable and illegal and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the revision petition.

¶32

Heard; Sri.B.Anil, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Smt.S.Seetha, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Smt.Bhavana Velayudhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶33

The question is whether there is any illegality in the impugned order?

¶34

It is an undisputed fact that C.M.P.

¶35

No.4775/2010 was filed by the third respondent as directed by the Government of Kerala in Annexure A9 order. The Government of Kerala has no grievance against the impugned order and has not challenged the same.

¶36

In Krishnakumar P.N. v. State of Kerala

¶37

[2023 (2) KHC 137] this Court has held that an accused does not have the locus-standi to challenge an order

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.13/2011

¶39

-:5:-

¶40

refusing the withdrawal of prosecution, since such right is the prerogative of the prosecution. I totally concur with the above view.

¶41

In the above background, I hold that the revision petitioner/accused does not have the locus-standi to challenge the impugned order, which

¶42

has been passed on an application filed by the third respondent. Consequentially, I hold that the revision petition is not maintainable and is only liable to be dismissed.

¶43

In the result,

¶44

(i) The revision petition is dismissed;

¶45

(ii) The order in C.M.P. No.4775/2010 is confirmed;

¶46

(iii)As the complaint is of the year 2009, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

(iv)The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the

¶48

Crl.R.P.No.13/2011

¶49

-:6:-

¶50

order with the LCR to the Trial Court for compliance.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/13.10.23

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

Subramanian Unni @ G.S.Unni v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanian Unni @ G.S.Unni v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.B.Shaji @ Kainakari Shaji Vs L.P.Prakash

N.K.Surendran Vs K.v.Rukhiya and Another

Anto N.A. Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation & an

Mukundan Vs Unnikrishnan

Financial Credits and Chits Company(P)Lt Vs Sidhique and Others

Libeesh Vs State of Kerala