(1) THE complainant is the appellant who has come against the order of the High Court refusing to grant leave against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly on the basis of a complaint filed by the appellant and his statement being recorded, the Magistrate was fully satisfied as to the existence of a prima facie case and took cognizance and issued summons for the appearance of the accused persons. There cannot be any dispute that the complainant at any time before a final order is passed in a case can satisfy the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused and in such a case the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn. But there must be an existence of a request from the complainant indicating good grounds as to why the complainant wishes to withdraw and the Magistrate after applying his mind to the said request must be satisfied that in fact good grounds exist for withdrawal of the complaint. In the case in hand the impugned orders of the Magistrate did not indicate whether any such request has been made by the complainant to withdraw the complaint nor application of mind by the Magistrate to the so-called alleged request made by the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand pointed out to us that possibly because the entire amount had been paid during the pendency of the criminal proceeding the Magistrate was persuaded to pass order under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if we accept the fact that the amount in question was paid but for exercising power under Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure the condition precedent must be satisfied, namely, that a request of the complainant with sufficient grounds and recording the satisfaction of the Magistrate on such grounds, to be good grounds for allowing the complainant to withdraw the complaint. In the absence of the compliance of the aforesaid precondition required for exercising jurisdiction under Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure any order passed by the Magistrate would be without jurisdiction and would be invalid in law. In the absence of the compliance of the aforesaid precondition required for exercising jurisdiction under Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure any order passed by the Magistrate would be without jurisdiction and would be invalid in law. In the aforesaid premises we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order of the Magistrate recording an order of acquittal under Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure is unsustainable. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in not granting leave to the complainant. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order passed by the Magistrate and direct the Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.