KUNJUKOSHY PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by some of the accused in C.C.No.682 of 1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case filed an application before the court below under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal from prosecution. The said application was numbered as CMP No.3242 of 2003. The defacto complainant/aggrieved person in the said case entered appearance before the learned Magistrate, and opposed the application. Finding that withdrawal from prosecution would adversely affect the other connected matters, and that it would not serve any public interest, and also that the ultimate result of the case cannot be predicted, the learned Magistrate disallowed the request, and accordingly dismissed CMP No.3242 of 2003 on 02.06.2003. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The State has not preferred revision against the order disallowing the request for withdrawal. Once the trial court disallowed the request, the State did not pursue the matter further, and dropped the idea there. But some of the accused have now come forward to challenge the order. This revision was admitted long back in 2003, and the criminal case has been pending before the trial court for fifteen years, only because of the interim stay granted by the Court.

(3.) On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find no scope for interference in the order passed by the court below on the ground of any illegality or irregularity or impropriety. The order of the court below shows that there are some connected matters also before the Court. Just because, some politician or a member of the Legislative Assembly is involved in the case the criminal case cannot be withdrawn, and such a request cannot be allowed by the Court. The trial court can allow withdrawal from prosecution only if such withdrawal would serve any public purpose or public interest, or if continuance of the prosecution would be against the public interest. It appears that the interest behind the present application is only political. Whether the case would end in acquittal ultimately is not a ground for consideration in the proceedings under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The Prosecutor cannot predict the result before trial. I do not find any public interest in the ground projected by the State before the trial court. Thus, I find that the request was rightly disallowed by the trial court.