Judgment : These two criminal revision cases arise out of one order passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram rejecting a memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Sec.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused in C.C.No.13 of l987. 2. It appears one Annamalai filed a private complaint before the Magistrate and that was referred by the Magistrate to the police under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. for investigation. Thereupon the police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec.323, I.P.C. During the pendency of the case the Assistant Public Prosecutor, as aforesaid, filed a memo under Sec. 321, Crl.P.C. for withdrawal of the case against the accused. 3. It appears this memo was objected to by the complainant and the learned Magistrate heard both sides and then passed the impugned order rejecting that memo. Against that order the accused has filed Crl.R.C.No.541 of 1987 and the State has filed Crl.R.CNo.66 of 1991. 4. In these two criminal revision cases the question that has to be considered is whether the said order of the Magistrate is proper or not. From a reading of Sec.321, Crl.P.C. it is clear that the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to withdraw from the prosecution of any person subject to only condition that it shall be with the consent of the court. It is also clear that the complainant will have no locus standi to object to the withdrawal. In a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 877, while discussing the ambit of Sec.321, Crl.P.C, it has been staled as follows: “Sec.321 providing for withdrawal from prosecution gives no indication as to the grounds on which the Public Prosecutor may make the application, or the consideration on which the Court is to grant its consent. The initiative is that of the Public Prosecutor and what the court has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. The initiative is that of the Public Prosecutor and what the court has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. The judicial function implicit in the exercise of the judicial discretion for granting the consent would normally mean that the court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised, or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. When an application under Sec.321 is made, it is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The court’s function is to give consent. This section does not oblige the court to record reasons before consent is given. However, it does not mean that consent of the court is a matter of course. When the Public Prosecutor makes the application for withdrawal after taking into consideration all the materials before him, the court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such materials and on such consideration, either gives consent or declines consent. The section should not be construed to mean that the court has to give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. All that is necessary to satisfy the section is to see that the Public Prosecutor acts in good faith and that the Magistrate is satisfied that the exercise of discretion by the Public Prosecutor is proper.” Therefore the only ground on which the consent may be declined is when the Public Prosecutor has exercised his executive function improperly or when the memo is an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. 5. The court below appears to have declined consent in a lengthy order on the ground that the Magistrate had ordered the Police to investigate the case and having done so the consent for withdrawal cannot be given, and on the further ground that the Assistant Public Prosecutor in his memo has stated that the prosecution is withdrawn for maintaining harmony between the parties and to ensure law and order in the locality, but no material for that has been placed before the court. But both these grounds are not tenable for the purpose of Sec. 321. But both these grounds are not tenable for the purpose of Sec. 321. Nowhere it is stated that in a casein which the Magistrate upon a complaint filed before him has ordered investigation by the Police, withdrawal of the prosecution cannot be granted. When the Assistant Public Prosecutor has stated that he is withdrawing the case to maintain harmony between the parties and to ensure law and order in the locality he cannot be expected to place any material to substantiate that. As seen from the above-quoted passage of the Supreme Court judgment the only ground on which the memo can be rejected is that the Public Prosecu-tor does not act in good faith and the exercise of his discretion is not proper. There is absolutely nothing in the case to show that the action of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is mala fide or improper. This being the position the Magistrate ought to have granted consent for withdrawal. 6. In this view of the matter the two criminal revision cases are allowed and the matter is remitted to the trial Magistrate to grant permission to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution.