The court clarified the distinction between quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and withdrawal under Section 321 Cr.P.C., emphasizing different standards for each.

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.1513 of 2021 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, which is now pending consideration before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court as C.C. No.30/2022. The offences alleged are under Sections 143 , 147, 269 and 283, r/w Section 149 of the Penal code and also under Sections 4 (2)(e) and 4(2)(j), r/w Section 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Act, 2021 and Section 3(e) of the Kerala Epidemic Disease Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) Additional Regulations, 2020.

2. The prayer sought for is to quash all further proceedings in the above referred Calendar Case on the strength of Annexure-III letter, whereby there was a direction by the Additional Chief Secretary to the District Collector to take effective steps under Section 321 Cr.P.C. to withdraw the afore referred crime bearing no.1513/2021. In fact, Annexure-III letter is based on Annexure-II order, whereby the Government have taken a decision to withdraw all cases which are not of a serious nature and which pertains to violation of Covid-19 regulations.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of Annexure-II order and Annexure-III letter, no useful purpose is to be served by proceeding with the afore referred Calendar Case. According to the learned counsel, the relief sought for is nothing, but the translation into action of the above referred orders of the Government, especially Annexure-III, which specifically refers to the subject crime. Learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in A.M.Arif and others v. State of Kerala and another (dated 30.09.2024) in Crl.M.C. No.4453/2023 to point out that Annexure-II order is not one passed based on the status of one among the accused as an M.P, but one which gives benefit to all the accused persons, who were arraigned as such only for violation of Covid regulations. Therefore, the requirement of obtaining a permission from the High Court, as such, does not arise even for an application to be filed by the prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, this was seriously opposed by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that the afore referred Annexure II and III orders would not afford good ground to quash the proceedings invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At best, the petitioner can seek a remedy, whereby the prosecutor can appropriately be triggered to file necessary application under Section 321 Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. As rightly pointed out, Annexure II and III orders are not sufÏcient enough to seek the relief of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and withdrawal of a case under Section 321 Cr.P.C. are different altogether. The latter requires satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that the withdrawal sought for is in public interest; whereas, the former requires satisfaction of this Court that the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of a Court or that order is required to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order of this Court. The three parameters culled out in Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not satisfied. Therefore, the relief as sought for cannot be granted.

7. However, in the attending facts and circumstances, it is only just and proper to direct the Public Prosecutor concerned to consider filing appropriate application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawing the case, especially in view of Annexure-III order, which specifically pertains to the subject crime. By Annexue-II, the Government had taken a decision to take steps to withdraw those cases, which are not of a serious nature and which were filed only for violation of Covid regulations.

8. In the circumst