LAWS(KER)-2013-11-131

MUHAMMED HANEEFA Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Decided On November 29, 2013
Muhammed Haneefa Appellant
V/S
STATION HOUSE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.361/12 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur. The said case was charge sheeted against the revision petitioner and a group of unidentified persons on the basis of Crime No.231/09 registered for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 332, 353, 427, 501(i) and 308 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act. While so, the Additional Government Pleader and the Public Prosecutor filed C.M.P.No.84/13 under Sec.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking consent from the court to withdraw the prosecution of the case, including the revision petitioner. After considering the reasons stated in the application for withdraw, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the above C.M.P. The legality, impropriety and correctness of the order dismissing the application seeking consent for withdrawal from prosecution is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 23/10/09 at 7 p.m. the accused Nos. 1 to 21, along with about 100 unidentified persons, formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit crime on the public road near the Post Office at Mattool and they prevented the vehicle in which C.Ws.1 to 11 were travelling. They pelted granite stone pieces towards the above said witnesses by shouting that no single policeman will be let free. Due to the pelting of stones, C.W.13 sustained injuries. There was a loss of Rs.4,130/ - due to the damage to the police vehicle. C.Ws. to 13 are the police officials.

(3.) C .W.13, who was working as the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, filed an objection stating that he is also an injured in the above crime and he was travelling in the police vehicle and he had sustained injury by the overt act of the accused. According to him, he sustained grievous injury in the incident. It is also seen from the objection filed by the injured that the accused with intention to commit murder had caused grievous injury to him.