Judgment B. P. Sinha, J. 1. On the basis of a First Information Report lodged by the petitioners before the Muzaffarpur Police Station, Case no.44 dated 14 8-1973 was instituted by the police. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against opposite-party nos.2 to 6 under sections 147, 148,324 and 448 of the Indian penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur and the case was transferred for trial before the Sab-Divisional judicial Magistrate. The petitioners case was that on 14-8 1973 at 11 p. m. petitioner no, 1 was sitting with petitioner no.2 and was taking his meal, when opposite-party DOS.2 to 6 with several others came there variously armed with Bhala, Garasa etc. , and started abusing the petitioners. They also threatened to kill them and assaulted them with Bhala. It may bo relevant here to state that a case was also filed against the petitioners and others at the instance of opposite party nos.2 to 6 and cognizance has been taken under sections 147, 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. That case is still pending. 2. On 23-4-19 6 a petition for withdrawal of the case against opposite-party nos.2 to 6 was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate. In that petition it was merely stated that "in the interest of public policy and expediency" the case should be withdrawn. When the petition was put up on the next date fixed opposite party nos.2 to 6 did not appear On account of their non-appearance the cas3 had to be adjourned on 15-5-1976, 166-1976, 28-6-1976, 10-8-1976, 1.3-9-1976 and 5-1-1977. On 5-1-1977 the petitioners filed a petition stating that a counter case against them was still pending and they opposed the prayer for withdrawal of the case against opposite party nos.2 to 6. When opposite party nos.2 to 6 did not appear even on the next date the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest on 15-7 1977 and 2-9-1977 for their appearance. On 2-9-1,77 opposite party nos.2 to 6 again did not appear and a petition was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to accord permission to withdraw the case. When opposite party nos.2 to 6 did not appear even on the next date the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest on 15-7 1977 and 2-9-1977 for their appearance. On 2-9-1,77 opposite party nos.2 to 6 again did not appear and a petition was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to accord permission to withdraw the case. the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate noted the absence of the accused persons as in spite of warrant of arrest they had chosen to be absent and ordered that no order could be passed in their absence. The accused persons were directed to appear on the next date, but they did not appear even then. On 22-3-1978 when neither of the parties appeared, the court adjourned the case to 10-8-1978. But four months earlier to that, i. e. , on 6-4-1978 a petition was again filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case and the reasons given were the same, i. e. , "in the interest of public policy and expediency". The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate without hearing the petitioners accorded the permission to withdraw the case against opposite party nos.2 to 6 by the impugned order. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in the present application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the permission granted by the learned court below to withdraw the case against opposite party nos.2 to 6 is illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter the Court below was not competent to hear the matter on 6-4-1978 in absence of the petitioners. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in All India Reporter 1972, supreme Court 496 (M. N. Sandaranarayanan V/s. P. V. Balkrishnan ). P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. observed thus : - "the section does not, however, indicate the reasons which should weigh with the Public Prosecutor to move the Court for permission nor the grounds on which the Court will grant or refuse permission. P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. observed thus : - "the section does not, however, indicate the reasons which should weigh with the Public Prosecutor to move the Court for permission nor the grounds on which the Court will grant or refuse permission. Though the section is in general terms and does not circumscribe the powers of the Public Prosecutor to seek permission to withdraw from the prosecution the essential consideration which is implicit in the grant of the power is that it should be in the interest of administration of justice which may be either that it will not be able to produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charge or that subsequent information before prosecuting agency would falsify the prosecution evidence or any other similar circumstances which it is dificult to predicate as they are dependent entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. None the less it is the duty of the Court also to see in furtherance of justice that the permission is not sought on grounds extraneous to the interest of justice or that offences which are offences against the State go unpunished merely because the Government as a matter of general policy or expediency unconnected with its duty do prosecute offenders under the law, directs the public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution and the Public Prosecutor merely does so at its behest". 4. So far as the present case is concerned the only reason given by the assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case is "interest of public policy and expediency". There is nothing on the record to show that the withdrawal sought lor is in the interest of administration of justice. The Court while considering the request to accord permission to withdraw the case should not do so only as necessary formality. The Court had to be satisfied on the materials placed before it that the grant of the permission subserves the administration of justice and that the permission is not being sought for covertly with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the executive organs are in duty bound to further and maintain, The reasons must be connected with the administration of justice. No persons should have a feeling that the offences go unpunished merely because the Government adopts such policy. No persons should have a feeling that the offences go unpunished merely because the Government adopts such policy. In the instant case it will appear that the impugned order dated 6-4-1978 was passed in a peculiar circumstances. Since February 1976 the accused persons were not appearing in spite of the processes and warrant of arrest and the case had been adjourned to 10-8-1978. There could be no reason to take up the matter prior to that date and that too in the absence of the petitioners if it was so urgent the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate should have noticed the petitioners to appear before him on a date fixed and should have heard them before passing his order. Be that as it may, the order granting permission to withdraw the case against opposite-party nos.2 to 6 appears to be for extraneous reasons unconnected with administration of justice. Learned counsel appearning for the State could not support the impugned order. In spite of notices having been served upon opposite-party nos.2 to 6 no one appeared on their behalf even in this Court. 5. The result is that this application succeeds, the order dated 6-4-1978 pa ed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in Case No.1283/1973/ tr. no.80/1978 is set aside. The case against opposite-party nos.2 to 6 pending in the Court below shall now proceed in accordance with law.