The victim has the right to be heard on an application for withdrawal from prosecution, and the withdrawal should be made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice.

K. HARILAL, J.

1. The Revision Petitioner is the de facto complainant/CW1 in S.C. No.209 of 2011 on the files of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. The said case arose from a Crime No.148 of 2010 of Kaliyar Police Station charge sheeted alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307,324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents 2 to 4 herein are the accused in the above case.

2. The charge against the accused is that on 10/04/2010 at about 8 P.M, the accused due to previous enmity towards the de facto complainant with the common intention to murder him, the 1st accused inflicted a cut injury on the left side of the head with a chopper, the 2nd accused attempted to inflict a cut injury on the head and he dissuaded it with his left hand and thereby sustained injury on his left thumb finger and the 3rd accused fisted on the nose and forehead with an iron block and a scuffle occurred between them and thereby the accused attempted to murder the de facto complainant.

3. During the course of trial, all the accused persons entered appearance and thereafter charge was framed and it was explained to the accused and they pleaded innocence to the same and the case was scheduled for trial from 20/08/2013 to 26/08/2013. Facts being so, on 12/07/2013, the Additional Public Prosecutor, who is in charge of the case, has filed Annexure A application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court, seeking permission to withdraw the case. Since the trial of the case was already scheduled, the Additional Public Prosecutor has also preferred Annexure B petition to advance the case from 20/8/2013 to a near date.

4. The trial court, without issuing notice and hearing the Revision Petitioner, who is the victim in the case, allowed the applications on 29/07/2013 and permission was granted to the prosecution to withdraw the case. The legality, propriety and correctness of this order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court is against the well settled judicial precedents of the Apex Court, reiterated, time and again, through various decisions. The impugned order is per se illegal as well as improper. The impugned order apparently reflects the non-application of the mind into the facts and circumstances of the case. The reasons stated for withdrawal of the case by the learned Public Prosecutor are not sufficient reasons to withdraw the case. In view of the judicial precedents well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the impugned order apparently shows that the public prosecutor has not applied his mind in good faith and it cannot be held that the decision to withdraw the case was taken independently uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration. None of the reasons stated in the application filed by the Public Prosecutor are sustainable under law. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that on an earlier occasion when the Government accorded permission to withdraw the case, the Petitioner approached this Court challenging the order and this Court vide judgment in WP(C) No. 14792 of 2012 closed the Writ Petition with the observation that the Petitioner has adequate opportunity to oppose the application, if any, moved under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor. The true copy of the said judgment is also produced along with this Revision Petition. But no opportunity had been given to the Revision Petitioner and the impugned order was passed hastily. Though notice had been served on the accused/respondent No. 2 to 4 herein they did not appear before this Court to contest this Revision Petition on merits.

6. In view of the submissions, the questions to be considered are : (i) Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order granting consent to withdraw from prosecution passed by the learned Sessions