Withdrawal Of Prosecution Would Go Against Public Interest; Public Prosecutor Simply Acted As Per Government’s Directions Without Applying His Mind: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court after observing that a public prosecutor simply acted as per the directions of the government without applying his mind, stated that such a withdrawal of the prosecution would go against public interest.
The Court dismissed a petition filed by the accused challenging an order by a Magistrate which denied a government request to withdraw prosecution in a criminal case involving allegations against the accused for assaulting and threatening a Woman Sub Inspector (S.I.) on duty.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “A perusal of the application submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor in the present case shows that he had not applied his mind on any of the materials. But, he simply acted as per the directions of the Government. It is evident that the learned Public Prosecutor had been totally guided by the order of the Government and there is nothing to show that he had applied his mind to the facts of the case. The submission of the learned counsel for the victim that extraneous factors influenced the Government in taking a decision to withdraw the prosecution has some force. I must say that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has failed in the discharge of his duties.”
Advocate Sunny Mathew appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Neema Jacob represented the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the SI was conducting a preliminary inquiry at the residence of the accused’s brother based on a complaint received. During this inquiry, when the SI enquired about the brother’s whereabouts, the accused allegedly responded with threats, abusive language, and physical force with intent to outrage her modesty. The accused, a local political leader, allegedly declared that “no police could do anything against him” and threatened to set her on fire after putting her in a vehicle.
Following the incident, an FIR was registered under Sections 353, 354, 294(b), and 506(ii) of the IPC. However, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted an application to withdraw from prosecution under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., submitting that there was a government directive indicating no objection to withdrawing the case. The Magistrate dismissed this application, observing that the accused had “insulted and assaulted a lady police officer” performing her official duties.
The High Court stated that the Public Prosecutor’s application to withdraw showed that it “simply acted as per the directions of the Government” with nothing to show that he had applied his mind to the facts of the case.
The Bench reiterated the Supreme Court’s decision in Abdul Wahab K. v. State of Kerala (2018) wherein it was held that “the Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has a vital role under the statutory scheme and is expected to act as an independent person. He/she has to apply his/her mind and consider the effect of withdrawal on society in the event such permission is granted.”
Consequently, the Court held, “This is a case where the modesty of a Woman Police Sub Inspector was outraged by the accused. The Woman Police Sub Inspector reached the residence of the accused as part of her official duty. The materials placed before the Court would reveal that the withdrawal of the prosecution would not serve public interest rather it would go against the public interest. The learned Trial Judge rightly held that the withdrawal of the prosecution would not serve public interest. The revision lacks merits and it stands dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title: Muhammed Ashraf K.A. v. The Sub Inspector Of Police & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:77219)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sunny Mathew
Respondents: Advocates Neema Jacob and Shahna Karthikeyan