JUDGMENT : 1. This petition in revision by the informant Satrughan Sao is directed against the ORDER :of the Munsif Magistrate, Madhubani, dated 17-6-1972 allowing the District Prosecutor to withdraw the case State V. Ram Swaroop Thakur and others under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 2. The petitioner Satrughan Sao lodged information at Khirahar outpost on 13-6-1970, on the basis of which case no. 5 dated 14-6-70 under Sections 147, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Harlakhi police station. The case of the petitioner was that on 13-6-1970 at about 7 A.M. he along with his father Jhun Sao and his brother Niras Sao had gone to their orchard. They saw the eight accused persons, who are opposite party nos. 1 to 8, plucking mangoes from their orchard. On resistance the accused persons began to assault the father and brother of the petitioner with lathi, fists and slaps. On receiving assault petitioner's father and brother fell down. Accused Ram Swarup Thakur, Swarup Matho, Rajendra Thakur, Gangadhar Thakur and Mmhar Thakur lifted the father of the petitioner and took him to the Darwaza of Sarjug Thakur and accused Ram Swarup Thakur forcibly took thumb marks of the father of the petitioner on two or three pieces of blank papers. Thereafter the aforesaid accused persons brought the father of the petitioner to the orchard again and left him lying there. The accused persons plucked and took away mangoes worth about Rs. 1000/- from the orchard of the petitioner. The police took up investigation. 3. On 9-9-70 a protest petition filed by the accused was put up before the Subdivisional Magistrate. It was to the effect that the case had been instituted at the police station with false allegations in ORDER :to put undue pressure on the accused persons to give up the possession of the orchard and that the Investigating officer being in collusion with the informant was to submit a charge sheet against the accused before the supervision of the case by higher officers. A prayer was therefore, made for direction to the Investigating Officer to submit chargesheet through the D.I. of police Madhubani or Additional S.P., Darbhanga. It seems that the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer was with the District Prosecutor. A prayer was therefore, made for direction to the Investigating Officer to submit chargesheet through the D.I. of police Madhubani or Additional S.P., Darbhanga. It seems that the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer was with the District Prosecutor. On 15-9-70 the Subdivisional Magistrate received a report from the D.I. of police that he had asked the District Prosecutor to withhold the charge sheet and that he would himself submit a report to the A.S.P. to take steps for withdrawal of the case. On 21-12-70 the charge sheet under Sections 147, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code against the 8 accused persons was received by the Subdivisional Magistrate. The Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance on 19-1-1971 and transferred the case to the file of the Munsif Magistrate for disposal with the observation that if the prosecution wanted to withdraw the case petition for withdrawal should be filed before the Munsif Magistrate. 4. On 6-4-71 the District Prosecutor made all application to withdraw from the prosecution of the accused persons on the ground of inexpediency of prosecution and for reasons of the State. It was stated by the District Prosecutor that charge sheet had been submitted by an irresponsible Investigating Officer without waiting for the supervision of the case by higher police officers in spite of the direction issued to him that he should not submit charge sheet without the supervision of the case by superior officers. This application remained pending till 17-6-72 when the learned Magistrate after hearing the District Prosecutor and the counsel of the accused persons passed ORDER :permitting the District Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the accused persons. This petition in revision is directed against that ORDER :. 5. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate granted permission to the Dist. Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the accused persons without applying his mind to the facts of the case. Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been expressed in very general words without defining the circumstance in which a withdrawal is permissible by the Court. It gives wide discretion to the Court which must, of course be exercised judicially and on well established principles. The reasons for withdrawal must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court. Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been expressed in very general words without defining the circumstance in which a withdrawal is permissible by the Court. It gives wide discretion to the Court which must, of course be exercised judicially and on well established principles. The reasons for withdrawal must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court. The learned Magistrate has observed: "Though fortunately, even if not entitled legally, the informant of this case has opposed the petition, he also does not allege any such abuse of power by the executive". Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that the executive function of the District Prosecutor had been improperly exercised or that it was an attempt to interfere with the course of justice for illegitimate purpose. In absence of any such allegation, the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate permitting the District Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution cannot be interfered with. 6. The learned Magistrate while dealing with the petition filed by the District Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case observed that the informant has no locus standi to oppose that petition and therefore, no weight could be given to the objection raised by him. The whole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed against that observation of the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in (1) Jogendra Narain Chaudhry V. Ganga Prasad Sah and others (A.I.R. 1954 Patna 150). Reuben. C.J., who delivered the JUDGMENT :, observed thus : "It has been suggested before us that in a criminal case the prosecution is in the hands of the State and that Jogendra Choudhry although he was the first informant, had no locus standi to oppose the withdrawal I find it difficult to accept the contention that Jogendra Choudhry who was vitally concerned with the success or failure of the case had no right to be heard. Personally, it has always been my view that a person who can be reasonably regarded as having an interest in the result of a case ought to be given a chance to be heard in a: matter of this kind. Personally, it has always been my view that a person who can be reasonably regarded as having an interest in the result of a case ought to be given a chance to be heard in a: matter of this kind. It is not only that the interest of such a person must be protected, but persons likely to be aggrieved by the ORDER :which the Court is about to pass must feel that the Court has been impartial and has given them an opportunity of representing their side of the case." 7. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is (2) Brajeshwar Sahay V. K.K. Sinha and others (1970 Criminal Law Journal 939). In that case the Magistrate had allowed application, dated 24.4.68 of the Public Prosecutor of Chaibassa and had permitted him to withdraw the case, although the prosecution was being conducted by Sri S.N. Pandey, Advocate Chaibassa, who had been appointed Special Public Prosecutor for that case by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum. On 26.4.68 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant objecting to the withdrawal of the case. The Magistrate disposed of that petition with the observation that final ORDER :had already been passed and therefore, no further ORDER :could be passed. The complainant filed an application in revision against that ORDER :. One of the contentions raised on his behalf was that the Magistrate was wrong in granting permission for the withdrawal from the prosecution without hearing the complainant While considering this contention Kanhaiyaji, J. referred to two decisions of this Court namely, (1) Jogendra Narain V. Ganga Prasad . (A.I.R. 1954 Patna 150) referred to above and (3) Gulli Bhagat V. Narain Singh (A.I.R. 1924 Pat. 183) and quoted with approval in this regard the following observation of Ramratan Singh, J in (4) S.B. Sharraf V. K. P. Singh (A.I.R. 1964 Patna 33) : "It is not difficult to reconcile the two decisions. What their Lordships meant in the former case was that, strictly speaking, the private party, at whose instance the case was started by the police, had no locus standi to object to the withdrawal of the case, but their Lordships never mean to say that the private party could not be heard at all when they had a genuine ground before the Magistrate against the withdrawal of the case. That is why in the latter case Reuben, C. J. said that the complainant should be heard." 8. Learned counsel appearing fur the opposite party, in support of his contention that the informant had no locus standi to oppose the application of the District Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case, has placed reliance on paragraph 12 of the JUDGMENT : of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in (5) Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1956 [State of Bihar V. Ramnaresh Pandey and Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1956 (Mahesh Desai V. Ram Naresh Pandey and others) (heard together) reported in A.I.R. 1957 Supreme Court 389], which runs thus: "There was some question raised before us as to whether the private complainants could be allowed to participate in these proceedings at the various stages. Nothing that we have said is intended to indicate that the private complainant has a locus standi." In that case the prosecution was launched on the first information against 28 persons about the commission of the murder of one Nand Kumar Chaubey. Appellant Mahesh Desai was one of the accused persons. The charge against him was under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code, the part ascribed to him in the First Information Report being that he abetted the murder by reason of certain speeches and exhortations at meetings or group talks the day previous to the murder. The application for withdrawal as against the appellant was made on December 6th, 1954 by the Public Prosecutor when the matter was pending before the Magistrate in the committal stage and before any evidence was actually taken. The Magistrate permitted the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case and discharged the accused. That ORDER :was upheld by the Sessions Judge on revision petition filed jointly by the first informant and the widow of the murdered person. These private parties pursued the matter further and applied to the High Court in revision. The High Court set aside the ORDER :of the Magistrate. The Advocate General and the aggrieved party Mahesh Desai filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court set aside the ORDER :of the High Court and restored the ORDER :of the Magistrate. Private complainant Ram Naresh Pandey had been allowed to participate in the proceeding at all stages and his appeal by special leave had also been entered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the ORDER :of the High Court and restored the ORDER :of the Magistrate. Private complainant Ram Naresh Pandey had been allowed to participate in the proceeding at all stages and his appeal by special leave had also been entered by the Supreme Court. It was in these circumstances that their Lordship of the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observation in paragraph 12 of their JUDGMENT :. 9. The aforesaid observation of their Lordship made in paragraph 12 of their JUDGMENT : shows only this much that there was nothing in their JUDGMENT : which was intended to indicate that a private party has a locus standi. Those observations did not amount to a decision that private complainant has absolutely no locus standi in the matter. 10. In a later case (6) M.N. Sankaranarayanan Nair V. P.V. Balakrishnan and others (AIR 1972 Supreme Court 496) their Lordship of the Supreme Court allowed an application in revision filed by private complainant namely, the appellant M.N. Sankaranarayanan Nair and set aside the permission granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court of Kerala. In that case complaint had been filed before Balia Puttom police and a case had accordingly been registered against two accused persons. After investigation the police submitted the charge sheet. The Magistrate committed the accused to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge to stand their trial. Under the direction from the State Government the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Assistant-Sessions Judge for withdrawal of the case. The Assistant Sessions Judge accorded permission to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawing from the Prosecution. The complainant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court of Kerala against the ORDER :of the Assistant Sessions Judge according permission to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawing from prosecution. The High Court held that the Public Prosecutor was justified when he applied for withdrawal of the case and accordingly dismissed the petition. Against that ORDER :the private complainant filed appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave. That appeal was allowed with the result mentioned above. It is true that in that appeal the question whether a private complainant has a locus standi to oppose the application of the Public Prosecutor, but the fact remains that the appeal filed by the private complainant was allowed by the Supreme Court. 11. That appeal was allowed with the result mentioned above. It is true that in that appeal the question whether a private complainant has a locus standi to oppose the application of the Public Prosecutor, but the fact remains that the appeal filed by the private complainant was allowed by the Supreme Court. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions it cannot be said that a private party has no right to urge before the court, before which an application under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the Public Prosecutor for permission to withdraw from the prosecution that the action of the Public Prosecutor in making the application is not bonafide. All that a private complainant does is to draw the attention of the court to an illegal and improper exercise of the executive function of the Public Prosecutor. The discretion as to whether consent should be given to withdraw is to be exercised judicially and on correct legal principles. Consent cannot be given unless the Public Prosecutor satisfies the court that the withdrawal is in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, necessary for the court to consider the objections raised by the private complainant to the prayer of the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case in ORDER :to see that the executive functions of the Public Prosecutor have been properly exercised and it is not an attempt to interfere with the course of justice for illegitimate purposes. 12. In the instant case, as stated above, there is nothing to show that the executive function of the District Prosecutor was not exercised properly. The Magistrate accorded permission to the Dist. Prosecutor to withdraw the case after applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case. Therefore the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate according permission to the District Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the application which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.