IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4521 of 2010()
1. UBAID, S/O.ABDUL RASSAK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/12/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4521 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Crime No.210/2002 of Cantonment Police Station was
registered for the offences under Sections 143, 145,
147, 148, 333, 427, 447, 436 and 307 read with Section
149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(e) of PDPP
Act. After completing the investigation, Annexure-A
final report was submitted against 211 accused, which
was taken cognizance by Judicial First Class
Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.P.No.58/2005.
Petitioner was the 96th accused. As he was absconding,
case against him and some others was split up and the
case against those accused, who appeared, was committed
to the Sessions Court, which was taken on file as S.C.
No.965/2008 and made over for trial to II Additional
Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvanantpuaram. While the
case was being tried, Prosecutor filed C.M.P.No.93/2009
for withdrawing the prosecution under Section 321 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. By Annexure-B order,
learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge granted
permission to withdraw the case. Annexure-B order shows
CRMC 4521/10 2
that case against all the accused were allowed to be
withdrawn. But as petitioner was not an accused in S.C.
No.965/2008, case against him was not withdrawn and
therefore, the benefit of withdrawal of the prosecution
was not available to the petitioner, though Annexure-B
order shows the name of the petitioner also among the
211 accused. As non bailable warrant was issued against
the petitioner in C.P.No.25/2009, the split up case,
this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Public prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the
decision of the Government, intimated to the District
Collector, based on which, permission was sought for by
the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution in
Crime No.210/2002. That decision was taken by the
Government based on a petition filed by Poonthura Siraj
and on a letter submitted by Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram. It shows that the decision was not
to withdraw the case against only those accused who
appeared, but against all the accused in Crime No.
CRMC 4521/10 3
210/2002 of Cantonment Police Station. Annexure-A final
report also shows that prosecution case is against all
the accused as such and there was no special reason to
withdraw the case against the accused, who appeared
before the committal court and committed to the
Sessions Court and pending before Additional Assistant
Sessions Court, alone. In such circumstances, when the
Prosecutor, finding valid reasons, sought permission of
the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge to
withdraw the case and learned Additional Assistant
Sessions Judge, accepting the submission of the
Prosecutor, granted permission to withdraw the case,
the benefit granted to the accused in the sessions case
shall be available to all the accused, including the
petitioner herein. In such circumstances, case against
the petitioner as well as other accused in C.P.No.
25/2009, the split up case of C.P.No.58/2005, on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, is quashed.
8th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv