High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-09Prosecution withdrawn; Annexure A6 order set as...

Pratheesh Mohan, Manoj, and Praveen v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C No.3118 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-11-09
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C is allowed; Annexure A6 order is set aside; the prayer in Annexure A5 is allowed, permitting withdrawal of the prosecution. The amount deposited by the petitioners is to be adjusted towards the loss caused to public property and credited to the treasury, in proper accounts.
Final Disposition: Prosecution withdrawn; Annexure A6 order set aside; deposited amount to be adjusted toward public loss; case disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pratheesh Mohan
Manoj
Praveen

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
B.S Sajikumar
Shaji

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. K. Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Vipin Narayanan - PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.M.C No.3118 of 2021) arising from Crime No.643/2013 of Cantonment Police Station. The petitioners (accused numbers 5, 11 and 16) faced a prosecution in C.C No.2319/2013 for alleged offences including Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 283, and 332 IPC read with Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act read with Section 39 read with Section 121 of the KP Act, arising out of a 23 May 2013 protest by about 100 Law College students over fee hikes. The alleged incident involved disruption of traffic, damage to barricades, damage to a government vehicle beacon, and damages around Rs. 18,320 to public property; CW1 and CW2 police officers reportedly had no objection to withdrawal. The Assistant Public Prosecutor sought withdrawal under Section 321 Cr.P.C., citing the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State. Annexure A6 ordered dismissal of that application. The petitioners argued deposit of the assessed damages, the petitioners’ status as aspiring lawyers, lack of precise identification in a large mob, and objections from CW1/CW2. After careful consideration, the court found the damages compensated, the identifiability issue unresolved, and the likelihood of conviction low, thus allowing withdrawal, setting aside Annexure A6, and directing that the deposited amount be adjusted toward the loss caused to public property and credited to the treasury. The judgment was delivered by Judge Ziyad Rahman A.A on 9 November 2022.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 283 IPCSection 332 IPCSection 3(1) of the PDPP Act read with Section 39 read with Section 121 of the KP Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State, 1980 (3) SCC 435 (principle permitting withdrawal of prosecution in the interest of public justice/public peace/public order)
Withdrawal of prosecution in public interest and public order considerations

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the prosecution could be withdrawn in the larger interest of public peace and public order, especially since Rs. 18,320 had already been deposited towards the damage and the petitioners are practicing lawyers with examinations pending. They argued the evidence against individual accused was weak in a mob of over 100, there was no solid evidence pinpointing each accused, and two police witnesses had no objection to withdrawal; continuing the case would be a futile exercise and prejudicial to the petitioners’ careers and rights. They urged the court to allow Annexure A5’s withdrawal prayer in light of the timely deposit and public interest considerations.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that withdrawal would undermine public interest given the nature of offences—destruction of public property and threat to public order—caused by a large mob, especially during official demonstrations. The prosecution argued that the case involved damages to public property and disturbances to law-and-order, and thus withdrawal should not be permitted; the Court should not rely on deposit alone and must consider broader public interests and the likelihood of conviction.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State	1980 (3) SCC 435	Positive	The Court cites Rajendra Kumar Jain as authority for permitting withdrawal of prosecution where it serves public justice and public peace, which supports the petitioners’ prayer.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Pratheesh Mohan, Manoj, and Praveen v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944** ## **CRL.MC NO. 3118 OF 2021** **C.C No. 2319/2013 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 5, 11, 16:** 1 PRATHEESH MOHAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O MOHANAN, SOBHA NIVAS, POWDIKONAM DESOM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, ULIYAZHTHRA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015. 2 MANOJ, AGED 32 YEARS S/O MOHANAN PILLAI, THEKKATHIL HOUSE, IDAKKULANGARA DESOM, 4TH WARD, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM-695 018. 3 PRAVEEN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O PRABHAKARAN, NILAKKALKIZHAKKATHIL VEETTIL, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, THAZHATHUKULAKKADA DESOM, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 506. BY ADV K.K.VIJAYAN ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF 2 Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM, 2 B.S SAJIKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O BALAN NAIR, ARYANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542. 3 SHAJI, AGED 45 YEARS S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MEL THONNAKKAL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 104. Adv Vipin Narayan -PP **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused Nos. 5, 11 and 16 in C.C No. 2319/2013 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No. 643/2013 of Cantonment Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 283, 332 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act read with Section 39 read with Section 121 of the KP Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 23.05.2013, the petitioners, along with about 100 persons, who were students of Law Academy Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, were protesting against the hike in fees in the Self-Financing Engineering and Medical Colleges, before the Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that, during the said protest march, they caused disturbances to the movement of vehicles, damaged the barricades set up by the Police and also caused damage to the beacon light protector of the Government vehicle. The total damages allegedly caused by the accused amounted to 4 Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 Rs.18,320/-. Annexure A1 is the FIR and Annexure A2 is the final report submitted by the Police. 3. Later, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted Annexure A5 application to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. In the said application, it was stated by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Rajendra Kumar Jain vs.** **State** [1980 (3) SCC 435], the prosecution needs to be withdrawn, in the interest of public justice, public peace and public order. However, the application submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor was dismissed as per Annexure A6 order. This Crl.M.C is filed challenging the order of dismissal of the said application as evidenced by Annexure A6. 4. Heard Sri.K.K. Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Vipin Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. I have perused the records and heard the arguments from either side. It is discernible from Annexure A6 order that the prayer sought by the Assistant Public Prosecutor was dismissed 5 Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 mainly on the ground that the act of the accused persons would result in damages to the tune of Rs. 18,320/- to the public property. Therefore, it was contended that the withdrawal of the case would not advance public interest in the larger sense. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners had already deposited the said amount before the Court below, and the same has been produced along with a memo filed on 01.11.2022. As per the said memo, it is evident that the amount was deposited before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, on 09.10.2022. It is also pointed out that the petitioners are now practicing lawyers and aspiring to appear for various examinations in the field of law; since the prosecution against them, in this case, is pending consideration, it is causing serious prejudice to them. 6. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is for the destruction of public property. However, one of the grounds mentioned by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the application is the lack of evidence to identify the accused persons. Even as per the prosecution case, the damage was caused by a 6 Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 mob consisting of more than 100 persons. Moreover, one of the main reasons on which the prosecution launched was that the said mob attacked two police officers. Those police officers, who were cited as CWs 1 and 2, were given notice by the Court regarding the application submitted by the prosecution under section 321 of Cr.P.C. They appeared before the Court and gave statements to the effect that they have no objection in withdrawing the case. 7. On perusal of the Annexure A5 complaint submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is evident that detailed reasons have been stated by him, which indicate that before submitting the application, he applied his mind and took a decision to withdraw the prosecution in the interest of public peace and public order. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the estimated damages allegedly caused by the accused persons were already compensated, I am of the view that the prayer sought by the Assistant Public Prosecutor withdrawing the prosecution can be allowed. In light of the fact that CW1 and CW2 have already stated that they have no objection in withdrawing 7 ## Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 the prosecution, I do not find any fruitful purpose in continuing the proceedings, as the chances of conviction are very bleak. Further proceedings, in all probabilities, would be a futile exercise. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C is allowed, Annexure A6 order is set aside, and the prayer sought by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in Annexure A5 is allowed; thereby, the prosecution is permitted to be withdrawn. As far as the amount deposited by the petitioners is concerned, it is ordered that the same can be adjusted towards the loss sustained to the public property and can be appropriated to the treasury towards proper account. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE** rpk 8 Crl.M.C No.3118 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3118/2021** |petitioners ANNEXURES|| |---|---| |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO| ||643/2013 OF CANTONMENT POLICE| ||STATION| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORTION| ||CRIME NO 643/2013 OF CANTONMENT| ||POLICE STATION| |Annexure A3|TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED| ||23.5.2013| |Annexure A4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||25.11.2013| |Annexure A5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION| ||PREFERRED BY THE PUBLIC| ||PROSECUTOR.| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||6.3.2021|