M.D. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing consent for withdrawal from prosecution under Sec. 321 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Instead of attempting a synoptic resume of the events which led to the impugned order, I am of opinion that it will be sufficient to extract the report filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor seeking withdrawal with consent under Sec. 321 of the Cr.P.C. Though it is a long report, I am of opinion that the extraction of the said report will effectively convey the precise nature of the case and the nature of application of mind that was undertaken by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. It reads as follows :

(3.) The learned Magistrate considered the application. No one had entered appearance to raise objections against the proposed withdrawal. The specific statement that the complaint filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed for non-prosecution is not controverted. That was a case registered by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the grievance aired by the petitioner when he was produced after arrest before him. C.Ws. 1 to 4 or the Railways did not raise any objections against the withdrawal of the case. But the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, which again is a very short order and I choose to extract the order below, came to the conclusion that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not properly applied his mind in filing the petition :