KRISHNAN ASARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.C.No.1916/2010 is filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.5/2000 of Kovalam Police Station registered for offences punichable under Sections 120(B) and 436 I.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.1221/2010 is filed by accused Nos. 5 and 7 in the said crime.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that due to prior enimity towards the de facto complainant and his family members the nine accused persons in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by them set fire to the house of the de facto complainant by name 'Kamala Bhavan' at Vellar, Kovalam in Venganoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram and as a result of the same, household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- were gutted by fire.

(3.) The case is presently pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-I, Thiruvananthapuram as S.C.No.592/2004. It was consequent on the embarrassment or unwillingness expressed by three of the Additional Public Prosecutors placed in-charge of the said Court to conduct the prosecution, presumably for the reason that the accused who allegedly belong to the Communist Part of India (Marxist) were personally known to them, that the de facto complaiannt was compelled to file Crl.M.C.No.1916/2010. Initially, consequent on the three Additional Public Prosecutors expressing unwillingness to conduct the prosecution, the de facto complainant approached the Government for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. According to him, on the influence of the accused persons the said application was rejected by the Government necessitating the peittioner to file an application before the trial court as C.M.P.No.19/2009 for permitting him to engage a private counsel for conducting the prosecution under Section 302 Cr.P.C. In the meanwhile, according to the de facto complainant, at the instance of the accused persons, the Government finally gave permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the above Sessions Case with the consent of the court under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Advocate K.S.Santhosh, Additional Public Prosecutor filed C.M.P.No.20/2009 before the trial Court seeking consent to withdraw the prosecution. Opposing C.M.P.No.20/2009 one Neyyattinkara P.Nagaraj filed C.M.P.No.498/2010 requesting the Court below not to grant permission to withdraw the prosecution filed by the Additional Public Prosecutior. The aforesaid three applications namely C.M.P.Nos.19 and 20 of 2009 and C.M.P.No.498/2010 were heard and disposed of by the common impugned order dated 10.3.2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to grant consent to the Additional Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution and accordingly dismissed as C.M.P.No.20/2009. C.M.P.No.19/2009 filed by the de facto complainant was not allowed under Section 302(1) Cr.P.C, but instead it was allowed only under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C permitting the private counsel engaged by the de facto complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor and with the permission of the Court to submit written argument notes. Since C.M.P.No.20/2009 was dismissed, C.M.P.No.498/2010 filed by the third party had become infructuous.