IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3021 of 2004(C)
1. SREEDHARA PANICKER, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. RAJAMMA, W/O. SREEDHARA PANICKER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. AJITHA, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :12/02/2007
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.
CRL.R.P.NO.3021 of 2004
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2007
ORDER
The revision petitioner has sought for setting aside the order of
the court below permitting the withdrawal of the complaint at the
initial stage and consequent acquittal of the accused under Section
321 Cr.P.C. The first petitioner/complainant is the paternal uncle of
the 2nd respondent/accused. There was a case and counter case with
respect to the incident that took place on 3-12-2000. The incident as
mentioned in the petition herein is that on the particular day when the
lineman from the electricity office came to replace the service wire,
the second respondent/accused came to the place and abused the
first petitioner, hurled filthy water on the face and thereafter she took
a wooden plank and hit on his face and consequently he was taken to
the District Hospital and to the Medical College Hospital for treatment
for the in injuries to the nasal bone. The offence charged is under
Section 326 I.P.C. It is submitted that in the counter case the first
petitioner and his son was made to stand trial vide C.C.No.622/2001
in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanasserry . It
is submitted that the above case has ended in acquittal. It is in the
CRRP.3021/2004 -2-
meantime that the present case was withdrawn on the basis of the
application filed by the Prosecutor supported by the Government order
in this regard dated 21-2-2002. It is the case of the petitioners that
in the case of withdrawal both the cases ought to have been withdrawn
and not to one case alone.
I find considering the fact that the parties are closely related
and living in the adjacent houses, the withdrawal of the case cannot be
found fault with. All the same as contended by the counsel for the
petitioners the case against the first petitioner and his son also ought
to have been withdrawn. All the same as it has been admitted that
the above case ended in acquittal and there is no appeal pending. I
find that no interference is called for. The Crl.R.P.is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
ks.