Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala

P.G. Ajithkumar, J

This Criminal Revision Case was initiated suo motu under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the basis of the direction of this Court in Order dated 20.06.2019 in Crl.M.C.No.419/2019.

Crime No.358 of 2010 of Bekal Police Station was registered on 13.05.2010 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 332, 308 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution allegation was that in the course of a Football Match at Meleparamba Ground, there occurred a fight between the members of opposing teams and when CWs.1 to 6, police officers, who were deputed for duty there intervened, the accused attacked them and inflicted injuries to them.

The investigation was completed and a final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- II, Hosdurg. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was numbered as S.C.No.28 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod.

The case against accused Nos.4, 5 and 6, who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein, was first committed to the Court of Sessions by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg as per order dated 05.07.2021 in C.P.No.71 of 2021. That case, taken on file as S.C.No.28 of 2012, was made over for trial and disposal to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod. On the basis of an application filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the court passed an order on 25.07.2014 acquitting those accused under Section 321(b) of the Cr.P.C. The order is as follows:

"Rs.25,000/- being the loss sustained to the club paid. So, issue notice to concerned officials of the club to receive the amount. In the light of allowing Crl.M.P.2818/14, all accused are acquitted u/s 321(b) of Cr.P.C. Destroy all the properties being valueless."

Accused 1 and 3 in the case, who are not available for trial while the aforesaid order of acquittal was passed, approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.419 of 2019 seeking to quash the proceedings against them. This Court, after referring to the decisions in Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain [(2005) 2 SCC 377], Bairam Muralidhar v. State of A.P [(2014) 10 SCC 380], Abdul Wahab K. v. State of Kerala and others [AIR 2018 SC 4265], and Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [(2006) 1 KLJ 349] held that Annexure A4 order thereto by which respondents 2 to 4 were acquitted under Section 321(b) of the Cr.P.C. was perverse and illegal. It was further directed to initiate a revision petition against the order dated 25. 07. 2014.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.M.C.Ashi and Sri. Jiji S.Kariyilakulam, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 5 and 6 though served with notice, none appears.

The definite finding of this Court in its Order dated 20.06.2019 in Crl.M.C.No.419/2019 is that the order acquitting respondents 2 to 4 under Section 321(b) of the Cr.P.C. dated 25.07.2014 is perverse and illegal. The cryptic order extracted above speaks for itself. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited decisions is to the effect that unless the objective of withdrawing from prosecution is to advance the cause of justice and the court considering the plea for withdrawal is convinced that such an objective would be achieved by allowing the withdrawal, the order and consequent acquittal of the accused would be illegal. The de facto complainants in the case are police officers. The reasoning mentioned in Annexure A4 for withdrawing from the prosecution is that it would help to keep a cordial relationship among the people in the locality and preserve peace and harmony in the locality. When the police officers are the victims of the offence of organised attack and onslaught, the learned Public Prosecutor ought to have explained how the withdrawal from prosecution would help to achieve a cordial relationship among the people of the locality and preserve peace and harmony in the locality. The application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor does not contain any such explanation. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to deviate from the observations made by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.419/2019 that Annexure A4 order thereto was perverse and illegal and that amounted to travesty of justice.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. and for the reasons aforesaid, the order of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod dated 25.07.2014 in S.C.No.28 of 2012 is set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Court will take back the case on file and proceed with it in accordance with law. The respondents/accused shall appear before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod on 08.12.2021.