ORDER S.L. Kochar, J. This revision is directed against the order passed in Sessions Trial No. 147/99 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam on 13-4-2001 allowing the application filed by the State u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the prosecution against the Non-applicant No. 3. Tersely the facts of the case for disposal of the present revision are as follows:- On a complaint lodged by the applicant, Police of Police Station, Ratlam registered Criminal Procedure Code No. 62/99 for the offence u/s 307 Indian Penal Code against the Non-applicant No. 3. The allegations as reflected in the First Information Report are that the applicant, was serving as a driver in the factory of Non-applicant No. 3. On 5-3-1999 at 7.30 PM he was called by the Non-applicant No. 3 Factory Owner in the factory. The applicant was asked to get the labourers pacified and also to convince them for amicable settlement, on which, the applicant replied that he could not say anything to the labourers and the Non-applicant No. 3 should convince them. It is alleged by the applicant in the First Information Report that on denial by the applicant, the Non-applicant No. 3 threatened him to done to death and took out some weapon from his shirt-pocket and fired at him which hit him at his stomach. He fell on the stairs and the Non-applicant No. 3 went inside the factory. Thereafter, so many persons assembled there. At the gate of the factory one Bhawaniprasad was on duty, had witnessed the incident. Thereafter, many persons reached over there and took him to the hospital. The applicant was Vice President of the Labourers' Union of the factory. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. On 27-2-2002, Assistant Public Prosecutor-in-charge of the case filed an application u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the prosecution against the Non-applicant No. 3, on the ground inter alia that there was an industrial dispute between the applicant and Non-applicant No. 3. The applicant was terminated from service because of which he himself was creating nuisance often and also instigating the labourers. In the month of January, 1999, on behalf of the factory-owner (Non-applicant No. 3), reports were lodged on 21-1-1999, 3-3-1999 and 5-3-1999 about the dispute between the owner and the labourers and the same industrial dispute was going on. The applicant was terminated from service because of which he himself was creating nuisance often and also instigating the labourers. In the month of January, 1999, on behalf of the factory-owner (Non-applicant No. 3), reports were lodged on 21-1-1999, 3-3-1999 and 5-3-1999 about the dispute between the owner and the labourers and the same industrial dispute was going on. The Non-applicant No. 3 had also lodged a report about the misbehaviour and criminal incident happened with him in the morning and in the noon. On the basis of the report dated 5-3-1999, it was crystal clear that a dispute between the factory owner and the labourers was going on. It was also submitted that the alleged incident had occurred all of a sudden due to excitement and possibility of acting in self defence by the Non-applicant No. 3, could not be ruled out. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Non-applicant No. 3, Crime No. 25/2000 under sections 323, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against the applicant and other labourers. This fact is also showing that the Non-applicant No. 3 acted in self defence. In the investigation, police has recorded the statements of only terminated employees of the factory. The statements of other independent employees and persons were not recorded. Therefore, the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor was of the opinion that the prosecution case against the Non-applicant No. 3 stands on weak footing and there was least possibility of success of the prosecution. It is also mentioned that the applicant received minor injuries as per medical report and a counter case has been registered against him. The dispute arose between the factory owner and the labourers on account of interference by Labour-Union and political parties. Therefore, in the public interest, the decision was taken by the State Government for withdrawal of the case. The application is also revealing the fact that there is no criminal record against Non-applicant No. 3. He is a disabled person, old in age and there was no possibility of success of the prosecution case on the basis of the material available on record. The applicant was in the habit of lodging such reports. The learned Asstt. The application is also revealing the fact that there is no criminal record against Non-applicant No. 3. He is a disabled person, old in age and there was no possibility of success of the prosecution case on the basis of the material available on record. The applicant was in the habit of lodging such reports. The learned Asstt. Public Pros, also justified the decision of the State Government for withdrawal of the prosecution against the Non-applicant No. 3 especially when it was an industrial dispute between the master and servant. In support of this, several judgments have also been mentioned in the application. The Asstt. Public Prosecutor has also submitted a detailed written argument. The aforesaid factual support has been elaborated with reasons. It is stated therein that the applicant is facing number of criminal cases and he is having quarrel-some attitude. The crime number and details have been given. The learned Court below, after hearing counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order allowing the application and directing discharge of the applicant. I have heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Ajay Aasudani learned counsel for the Non-applicant No. 3 and gone through the entire record. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant is that by order dated 12-4-2001, one application u/s 321 of the Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the trial Court and the said order was also affirmed by the Revisional Court. Therefore, again second application is not maintainable. He further contended that the Asstt. Public Prosecutor himself has not taken independent decision for withdrawal of the case, but he was coached and directed by the State Government which is contrary to the provisions of section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Dy. Government Advocate, in oppugnation, has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken due care of the previous rejection of withdrawal application and the second application is not barred which is clear from the judgment delivered by this Court in the State of M.P. vs. Kamtaprasad, 1992(3) C.C.R. 247. He further submitted that in application for withdrawal as well as written arguments, the learned Asstt. He further submitted that in application for withdrawal as well as written arguments, the learned Asstt. Public Posecutor has assigned detailed, valid and germane (sic) apt to the provisions of section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as several judgments rendered by the Apex Court and various High Courts of the country. In support, he placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . Shri Aasudani, learned counsel for the Non-applicant No. 3 raised a preliminary objection that the applicant being a private party, has no locus standi to file this revision. There is no substance in this objection. The Apex Court has set this point at rest long back in the case of A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another, and observed that "It is well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that any one can set or put the criminal proceedings into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary". This view has been fortified against in the judgment of Shivnandan Paswan (supra) and in the case of The Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others, . The law is well settled that the question of locus standi is completely foreign to the criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, this preliminary objection is repealed. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor has not come to the conclusion for withdrawing the case independently, but he was just obeying the order/direction/decision of withdrawal taken by the State and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application. In support thereof, he placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in ( 1999(2) MPJR 267 ) Tarik Riyaz vs. State of M.P., Noor Mohd. vs. State of M.P., 2000(3) MPHT 296 and pronouncement of Apex Court in Abdul Karim vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 116. All these three judgments are not helpful to the applicant. In the case of Tarik Riaz and Noor Mohd (supra), this Court, after considering in detail the provisions of section 321 Criminal Procedure Code has held factually that the application by the Public Prosecutor does not show on what basis he was satisfied and he had no material with him except the letter of Law Department regarding withdrawal of the case. In both the aforesaid cases, the Public Prosecutor did not apply his independent mind and moved the application for withdrawal only on the basis of the decision of the State Government. In Abdul Karim's case (supra), the withdrawal was filed by Karnataka Government through Public Prosecutor u/s 321 Criminal Procedure Code for withdrawing the cases pending against Virappan. The case of Virappan cannot be equated with the present case against Non-applicant No. 3 who has no criminal history. No other cases are pending against him. He is an industrialist and businessman. He is an old, sick and infirm person. This Court has gone through the application filed by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor as well as the written submissions in support thereof. The learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor has applied his independent mind and gave valid and appealable reasons for withdrawal of the case vis-a-vis also mentioned about the decision of the State Government. It is not a case in which he has simply filed an application for withdrawal before the Court conveying the decision or intention of the State Government and acted merely as postman between the Court and the State Government. The learned trial Court while allowing the application has passed the detailed and elaborate order keeping in sight the law enunciated by the Supreme Court and this Court in various judgments. The learned Trial Court has also, after perusing the record, gave consent to withdraw the prosecution. In para 10, the trial Court has mentioned that the Asstt. Public Prosecutor-in-charge of the case has filed the application in public interest and for maintaining the industrial peace and harmony between the employees and employer. The alleged dispute had arisen relating to factory management. The learned court has also considered that there was least chance of success of the case. The Supreme Court in the case of Sheonandan Paswan (supra) has held:- There is no appeal provided by the Act against an order giving consent u/s 321. But the order is revisable u/s 397, Criminal Procedure Code. The Court in revision considers the materials only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings, sentence or order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. Under section 321 Criminal Procedure Code, no specific grounds for withdrawal have been envisaged by the Legislation. The Court in revision considers the materials only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings, sentence or order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. Under section 321 Criminal Procedure Code, no specific grounds for withdrawal have been envisaged by the Legislation. The Supreme Court again in Sheo Nandan Pasawan's case (supra) held in paras 90 and 91 as under:- 90. Section 321 Criminal Procedure Code is virtually a step by way of composition of the offence by the State. The State is the master of the litigation in criminal cases. It is useful to remember that by the exercise of function u/s 321, the accountability of the concerned person or persons does not disappear. A private complaint can still be filed if a party is aggrieved by the withdrawal of the prosecution but running the possible risk of a suit of malicious prosecution if the complaint is bereft of any basis. Since section 321 does not give any guidelines regarding the grounds on which a withdrawal application can be made, such guidelines have to be ascertained with reference to decided cases under this section as well as its predecessor section 494. I do not propose to consider all the authority cited before me for the reason that this Court had occasion to consider the question in all its aspects in some of its decisions. Suffice it to say that in the judgments rendered by various High Courts, public policy, interests of the administration, inexpediency to proceed with the prosecution for reasons of State and paucity of evidence were considered good grounds for withdrawal in many cases and not good grounds for withdrawal in certain other cases in those decisions. In the present case, the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor has given detailed reason in the application and written submissions after full application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions of the State Government for withdrawal. Learned Court below has also accorded consent after due deliberation on facts and law. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety for interference. In the result, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed