LAWS(KER)-2013-10-185

SAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Decided On October 11, 2013
SAJI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the de facto complainant/CW 1 in SC No. 209 of 2011 on the files of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. The said case arose from a Crime No. 148 of 2010 of Kaliyar Police Station charge-sheeted alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. The respondents 2 to 4 herein are the accused in the above case. The charge against the accused is that on 10/04/2010 at about 8 P.M., the accused due to previous enmity towards the de facto complainant with the common intention to murder him, the 1st accused inflicted a cut injury on the left side of the head with a chopper, the 2nd accused attempted to inflict a cut injury on the head and he dissuaded it with his left hand and thereby sustained injury on his left thumb finger and the 3rd accused fisted on the nose and forehead with an iron block and a scuffle occurred between them and thereby the accused attempted to murder the de facto complainant.

(2.) During the course of trial, all accused persons entered appearance and thereafter charge was framed and it was explained to the accused and they pleaded innocence to the same and the case was scheduled for trial from 20/08/2013 to 26/08/2013. Facts being so, on 12/07/2013, the Additional Public Prosecutor who is in charge of the case has filed Annexure-A application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, seeking permission to withdraw the case. Since the trial of the case was already scheduled, the Additional Public Prosecutor has also preferred Annexure-B, petition to advance the case from 20/08/2013 to a near date.

(3.) The Trial Court, without issuing notice and hearing the Revision Petitioner who is the victim in the case allowed the applications on 29/07/2013 and permission was granted to the prosecution to withdraw the case. The legality, propriety and correctness of this order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.