O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.309 of 2016 pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Mananthavady. The case originated from Crime No.94 of 2016 of Thalappuzha Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 332 read with 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Health Care Service Person and Health Care Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012. The allegation is that the petitioners, who were students of Wayanad Engineering College, trespassed into the Community Health Centre at Periya, armed with dangerous weapons, obstructed the staff at the Health Centre from doing their duties, assaulted some of them and caused damage to Government property. The Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by Annexure-C order of the trial court, dismissing the application filed by the Public Prosecutor, seeking permission to withdraw from the prosecution against the petitioners.

2. Annexure-B is the application seeking withdrawal filed under Section 321 Cr.P

.C. The reasons for withdrawal from prosecution stated are as follows; The incident which resulted in registration of the crime, is an offshoot of the altercation between students belonging to rival political parties. All the students, accused as well as the injured, have completed their studies and there is no more enmity or hatred between the parties now. The prosecution witnesses are strangers to the accused and a large group of persons having been present during the incident, it will be difficult to identify the accused. The continuance of the prosecution may increase the enmity between the Police and the locals and lead to breach of peace.

3. The prayer for withdrawal from prosecution was rejected by the learned Magistrate finding the offences alleged to be grave in nature and that withdrawal from the prosecution of persons who destroyed Government property will not advance public justice.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Magistrate. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had trespassed into Government property, obstructed public servants from doing their duty, injured some of them and damaged Government property. In what manner public justice would be advanced by withdrawing from the prosecution of such persons is not stated in Annexure-B. On the other hand, the reasons stated are not at all satisfactory. The accused having completed their course, the enmity among the rival groups having ended, the prosecution witnesses being strangers to the accused, are not relevant considerations or sufficient reasons for permitting withdrawal from prosecution. The Apex Court has, in Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Special Police Establishment and Others [(1980)3 SCC

435], plithily stated the role of the Prosecutor and the court, while requesting/permitting withdrawal from prosecution. The relevant portion of that judgment is extracted hereunder:

“26. It is on this material we have to determine whether the withdrawal from the prosecution could be said to be mala fide, that is, for irrelevant or extraneous reasons. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient basis to come to such a conclusion particularly in view of two outstanding circumstances namely that only four out of twenty-five cases have been withdrawn and the complainant himself had acknowledged the title of the Town Improvement Trust to the lands and the Trust had not only returned the lands to the complainant but also paid him compensation for the demolished buildings in the interest of all parties in Bhiwani town. We, therefore, dismiss the special leave petition.”

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.

Sd/- V.G.ARU