JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL Vs. JOY KAITHARATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 20/05/2013 in CMP No. 1300/13 in CC No. 1190/09 of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ernakulam, by which the petitioner's application for impleading/intervening in CC No. 1190/09 is dismissed, the above petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside Annexure 8 order referred above and to issue appropriate orders to the Court below to permit the petitioner to intervene/implead in CC No. 1190/09 of the above Court. CC No. 1190/09 is instituted upon a private complaint preferred by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent who is presently the Union Minister, on the allegation that the 2nd respondent/accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, (herein after referred to for short as "the Act" only). The allegation is that the 2nd respondent/accused caused disturbance or disruption to the singing of National Anthem on 16/12/2008 at Le Meridian Convention Centre at Kochi. With above allegation, the 1st respondent herein preferred a complaint, (i.e., Crl. M.P. No. 212/09 before the Court below against the accused who is the 2nd respondent herein, and after due compliance of the procedure as contemplated in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to for short as "Cr.P.C." only) cognizance was taken for the said offence and thus instituted CC No. 1190/09. While the proceedings in the Court below were in progress and at the stage of hearing, the accused therein preferred an application for his discharge from the above. While so, the complainant filed a petition to withdraw the complaint, stating that the 2nd respondent/accused has tendered a public apology on the issue and therefore he has no interest in pursuing the case further. After filing the above petition for withdrawal at the instance of the complainant therein, the petitioner herein approached the Court below by filing CMP No. 1300/13 in the above crime. According to the petitioner, the dismissal of the above petition is arbitrary, illegal and incorrect. Therefore, he preferred this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..

(2.) Heard Adv. Sri. Thomas Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the impugned order as well as other materials produced along with the above MC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the subject matter and the issue covered by the complaint and the case pending before the Trial Court, are touching the integrity of the Nation and National interest and particularly the interests of every citizen of India. It is the further contention of the counsel that, now the complainant in the above case, who is the 1st respondent herein, has preferred an application to withdraw the complaint and resultantly, nobody will be there to prosecute the complaint and to establish the guilt of the accused and to see that he is properly punished. According to the learned counsel, mere expressing of apology by the 2nd respondent will not absolve him from his penal liability, as contemplated by 'the Act'. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner being a human rights activist is entitled to get impleaded in the above case and prosecute the matter, but the learned Magistrate without considering the criminal liability of the 2nd respondent/accused and the constitutional rights of the petitioner, dismissed the petition. In support of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he placed reliance upon some decisions, which are quoted in the subsequent pages.