1. The State of Kerala has come in Revision challenging the Order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakancherry dated 11.06.2007 in C.M.P.No.2952/2007 in C.C.No.114/2004, which dismissed an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). Though the respondents were served, they have not chosen to appear before this Court.

3. It was argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the agitation, which paved the way for the registration of the crime, was only a natural response of the affected public against the wrong policies of the then Government, a right which will have to be read into Article 19 of the Constitution to assemble peacefully. That apart, the difference of opinion arising from the two political ideologies have vanished and the ice of enmity between the various political groups have already melted. That apart, the people in the locality are now living in peace and harmony due to the friendly and cordial relation between the political organisations. In such circumstances, further prosecution may cause breach of tranquility in the area. These aspects ought to have weighed with the learned Magistrate, is the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. If the continuance of the prosecution is not in the interest of anybody concerned, such proceedings are to be aborted, is the submission made. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would make a final submission that, if this Court is not inclined to interfere in this Revision, an opportunity may be granted to the revision petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 321 Cr.P.C, as envisaged in the Order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.699/2016] dated 10.08.2021, after seeking leave of this Court.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Revision Petition. It is noticed that the crime was registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 342 and 183, r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the accused persons, who are the leaders of a political wing, along with hundred others, unlawfully assembled in the front gate of the Taluk office, Thalappilly on 27.01.2004 at 7:00 a.m. and prevented the people from entering the compound of Taluk office and wrongfully restrained them contrary to the Orders in this regard passed by this Court, thus, disrupting the function of the offices inside the compound of the Taluk office and committing the offences enumerated above.

5. The learned Magistrate relied upon the decisions of this Court in Shereef Babu v. S.I. of Police [1996 (2) KLT 200] and Yohannan v. State of Kerala [1996 (2) KLT SN 26 (C.No.24)] to find that the paramount consideration in respect of an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is the interest of administration of justice and that, if the court is not satisfied of the request made by the Public Prosecutor, the application for withdrawal is liable to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate arrived at the finding in paragraph no.7 that the pivotal consideration is, whether allowing an application for withdrawal would advance the ends of justice. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to find that the blockade created by virtue of the subject event prevented ingress and egress of the citizens, including Judicial Officers, lawyers and clients into the compound. Besides, the Magistrate found that the reasons stated as regards the melting of the 'ice of enmity' between the political groups etc. to be very vague and unsatisfactory. It was found that preventing the lawful entry and exit of citizens in and out of the civil station is an open defiance of law, besides interfering with the legitimate rights of the citizens. Granting consent for withdrawal in such circumstances would undermine the majesty of law and that it would not serve the ends of justice, is the finding entered into. Infringement of the fundamental right of the citizens is also seen considered. On the strength of the above findings, the learned Magistrate chose to dismiss the application under Section 321.

6. This Court cannot find anything wrong in the approach made by the learned Magistrate. The facts and the reasoning, which weighed with the Magistrate, are only to be endorsed. In the circumstances, the instant Revision should fail. This Court is also afraid whether the present Revision, at the instance of the Government, is maintainable or not. If the competent person to prefer an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is the Public Prosecutor, no right can be conceded to the Government to prefer a Revision therefrom. If at all, a Revision is to be preferred, the competent person is again the Public Prosecutor concerned; and not the Government.

7. Coming to the final argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor to afford one more opportunity in compliance with the directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra), this Court notice that the instant application was filed in the year 2007 and the impugned order is dated 11.06.2007. The directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) is dated 10.08.2021, which, needless to say, is prospective in nature. In the circumstances, the said request also cannot be allowed.

The result of the above discussion is that this Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and the same will stand dismissed.