Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19th December, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh. It is alleged by the petitioner that by the aforesaid order dated 19th December, 1990, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarhdeclined to accept the application filed by the complainant (non-petitioner no.2) under Section 257 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the complaint in respect of the accused Ram Gopal and Bhim Singh. A perusal of the record of the lower court shows that on 19th December, 1990 an application under Section 257 Cr.P.C. had been filed before the learned Trial Magistrate on behalf of the non-petitionerno.2 (complainant Bal Ram) by his counsel. The learned Judicial Magistrate fixed 14th February, 1991 for the disposal of that application and on 14th February, 1991 the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by the non-petitioner no.2 under Section 257 Cr.P.C. on the ground that permission to withdraw the complaint was sought only against two out of five accused persons. (3). Though, in this petition, the order dated 14th February, 1991 has not been challenged by the petitioner, but in view of the fact that the application filed by the non-petitioner no.2 under Section 257 Cr.P.C. was in fact dismissed on 14th February, 1991, it is in the interest of justice that the legality and propriety of the order dated 14th February, 1991 is considered and appropriate orders are passed. I, there-fore, propose to consider the legality and propriety of the order dated 14th February, 1991 in this petition. (4). Section 257 Cr.P.C. provides that if a complainant at any time before a final order is passed in any case under Chapter XX (providing for trial of summons-cases by Magistrate) satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn. (5). A bare perusal of Section 257 Cr.P.C. shows that complainant has the discretion to withdraw his complaint against all accused persons or against anyoneof them or some of them. (5). A bare perusal of Section 257 Cr.P.C. shows that complainant has the discretion to withdraw his complaint against all accused persons or against anyoneof them or some of them. It is not necessary for the complainant to withdraw the complaint against all the accused persons. In view of this position of law, rejection of the application dated 19th December, 1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the prayer for withdrawal of complaint was made in respect of only two accused persons and not of the five accused persons, does not appear to bein accordance with law. The order dated 14th February, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate therefore deserves to be set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. (6). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby directed to re-consider the application dated 19th December, 1990 filedby the learned counsel for the non-petitioner no.2 under Section 257 Cr.P.C. (7). The petition is disposed of accordingly. The stay granted by the Court is hereby vacated. The record of the case be returned to the trial Magistrate alongwith the copy of this order within a fortnight.