KRISHNAN KAKKANATH Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is posed before the Court in this revision is of some novelty and that is whether when a case and counter case exist, permission for withdrawal under S.321 of the Cr.P.C, could be granted in the main\counter case alone.

(2.) The facts: The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No. 264 of 1998 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasargode, where the allegation is that obstruction was caused to the Sales Tax officials when they tried to conduct inspection in a business place. The present petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasargode on 24.2.1998 alleging that the first respondent herein, who was the Intelligence Officer of the AIT & ST Squad No.2, Tellicherry was coming out of Shalimar Jewellery, Kasargod at about 1.50 p.m. on 18.11.1997: The wrongfully restrained the petitioner and prevented him from moving from the place shouting that he was the leader of the group and that he would not be let free. The petitioner was actually the office bearer of the State Committee of the 'Kerala Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi' and the accused hit him with a stone on the right side of his forehead near the eye, in consequence of which the petitioner sustained injury requiring long and continuous treatment. He was first taken by the members of his organisation, who were in the premises at the time, to the Government Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Kasaragode, then to the Kasaragode Nursing Home and thereafter to the Unity Health Complex, Mangalore, where he underwent treatment from 18.11.1997 to 22.11.1997. The said complaint was forwarded to the police for action under S.156 (3) of the Cr.P.C, and in due course charge was laid. C.C.No. 929 of 1998 was filed on that basis and the Court framed charges against the first respondent herein (Sales Tax Official) on 21.7.1999. It was on the next adjournment date viz. 16.10.1999 that the Prosecutor filed application under S.321 of the Cr.P.C, seeking withdrawal of the case. In the application it was alleged by the Prosecutor, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) It was also alleged that the case has created strife and ill feelings between the two sections, that peace and harmony among them was affected and that in order to keep cordial relationship between the parties and to preserve peace and harmony, it is necessary to drop the proceedings. He further stated that the Government also wanted to withdraw the case in the interests of public justice, which is of paramount consideration.