The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed with the following prayers:

“..... to quash Annexure A1 order in C.M.P. No.1116/2015 passed by the J.F.C.M. Court, Taliparamba and grant permission to plead guilty by allowing C.M.P. No.1116/2015 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Court, Taliparamba.

2. The petitioners herein are accused 2 and 3 in Calendar Case, C.C.No.818/2013 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba, pertaining to Crime No.199/2013 of Payyavoor Police Station, Kannur district. The offences involved in this case are those under Secs.447, 427 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 5.6.2013 at 1.30 p.m. the accused persons trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and destroyed the wall of that property and thereby caused loss of Rs.500/- to the defacto complainant. According to the petitioners, they had appeared before the court below and pleaded not guilty on 26.3.2014. Now as both the petitioners are women, that the 1st petitioner has now got an employment opportunity at Cypress and she has to renew her passport for going abroad, the petitioners do not now want to proceed with the trial of the case on merits and according to them, they are ready to plead guilty. So the petitioners filed a petition to permit them to plead guilty before the court below as per Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1116/2015. But the court below dismissed said Crl.M.P.No.1116/2015 on 9.2.2015. According to the petitioners, the said order is not legally sustainable and it is illegal and perverse and that the petitioners have every right to opt not to contest the case on merits and to plead guilty, as this would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution, who themselves are insisting that the petitioners are guilty.

3. It is further pointed out that it has been held in the decisions of this Court as in Santhosh v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (1) KLT 795, that the accused can withdraw his claim to contest the trial on merits and plead guilty at any time during the trial. The petitioners would also rely on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another reported in (1992) 3 SCC 700, wherein it has been held that on the accused pleading guilty, conviction can be founded upon confession/admission of guilt made by the accused at any stage of the trial including the stage of making statement under Sec.313 and that while acting upon the plea of guilt of the accused, court must approach with caution and circumspection to ensure that the plea is clear and unqualified and the admission of the facts constitutes the offences, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

4. Heard Sri. V.T. Madhavanunni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. T.S .Asaf Ali, learned State Prosecutor instructed by Sri. C. Rasheed, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State of Kerala in this case.

5. This Court in the case Santhosh v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (1) KLT 795 has held that there is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C. enabling the court to permit an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and convict him on a plea of guilty rendered subsequently. But that there is no prohibition in the Cr.P.C. to record the plea of guilty in the course of trial and convict the accused on his subsequent admission of guilt. The object of trial is to investigate the offence and to find out the truth. When the guilt is admitted by the accused and the admission is found to be voluntary, there is no reason why the court should not allow him to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty and that there is no reason to restrict the applicability of Sec.229 of the Cr.P.C. to a particular date or occasion, but the purport of the section is obvious that plea of guilt can be advanced by an accused at any stage of the trial after framing ch