Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Anilraj on 11 August, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No. 1405 of 2008
..1..
2025:KER:60393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1405 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2008 IN CC NO.568 OF 2003 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:
1 ANILRAJ, S/O RAJU,
KALLIDIKONAM BABU BHAVAN,
CHAIKOTTKONAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVAN PILLAI
KUTTICHAKONATHU VEETTIL,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 S.RANJEEV, S/O.SUKUMARAN, MAVADI VEEDU
PALLITHANAM, TC 21/521, KARAMANA P.O,,
THIRUVAANTHAPURAM.
4 K. VENUKUMAR
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O KARUNAKARAN,
RESIDING AT T.C.4/2369, MUTTADA WARD,
KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THRUVANANTHAPURAM
IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DATED
30.10.2009 IN CRL.MA.10378/09 IN CRL.RP.NO.1405/08
Crl.R.P.No. 1405 of 2008
..2..
2025:KER:60393
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
SHRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No. 1405 of 2008
..3..
2025:KER:60393
ORDER
This Crl.R.P. has been filed by the State challenging the
order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the
trial court') dismissing a petition filed by the Assistant Public
Prosecutor under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the accused and the
additional respondent No.4 is the defacto complainant in
C.C.No.568 of 2003 pending on the files of the trial court. The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 294(b),
506(1), 342 and 353 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that:
After almost all the prosecution witnesses were examined
(PWs 1 to 7), the prosecution filed a petition under Section
321 of Cr.P.C. to withdraw from the prosecution. The trial
court by a detailed order dismissed the said petition. The
..4..
2025:KER:60393
State has come up with this revision petition challenging the
said order.
4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor
Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R. for the petitioner, the learned counsel
for respondent No.2 Sri.M.Rajagopalan Nair and the learned
counsel for additional respondent No.4 Sri.T.M.Chandran.
5. It is settled that the court while deciding an
application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. is bound to consider
whether the Public Prosecutor applied his mind as a free
agent and moved the application. The court must exercise its
judicial discretion by considering all the materials placed
before it by the Prosecutor, and on such consideration, the
court must either give consent or decline consent (See
George Alexander v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 2170]).
The main ground canvassed by the Prosecutor in the
petition for withdrawal is that there exists a cordial
..5..
2025:KER:60393
relationship between the accused and the defacto
complainant. The trial court after verifying the averments in
the petition and also taking into account the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, had found that the said ground
must fail. The additional respondent No.4/victim filed a
detailed objection to the petition for withdrawal filed by the
Prosecutor. In the objection, the case of the Prosecutor that
there exists a cordial relationship between the accused and
the defacto complainant has been specifically denied. That
apart, from the records it is seen that the allegations against
accused are that on 28.11.2002 at 10 a.m., the accused used
obscene words and threatened CW2, locked the office room
and thereby wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant
and other employees for about fifteen minutes in the office
room. There is also an allegation that when CW4 unlocked the
room, the accused person entered into the room and again
used obscene words and shouted abusive slogans. The
..6..
2025:KER:60393
accused were working in the same government department in
which the defacto complainant was also working. The defacto
complainant is their superior officer. The definite case of the
prosecution is that the intention of the accused was to
overawe their superior officer from proper administration of
the office. In these circumstances, as rightly held by the trial
court, if the withdrawal petition is allowed, that may affect
the morale of the entire staff of the department. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the withdrawal from prosecution would
further any public interest. That apart, the withdrawal from
prosecution petition has been filed at the fag end of the trial,
after examination of all the prosecution witnesses. It is true
that Section 321 of Cr.P.C. gives power to the Prosecutor to
apply for withdrawal at any time before the judgment is
pronounced. But, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the
withdrawal petition filed by the Prosecutor at the fag end of
..7..
2025:KER:60393
the trial cannot be justified. I see no illegality or impropriety
in the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal revision
petition is dismissed. Since the matter is of the year 2008,
the trial court is directed to dispose of the case within six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
APA
..8..
2025:KER:60393
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1405/2008
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY APP, NO.
CRL.MP NO. 2597/07.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF JFCM COURT-III,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.2.2008.
