JUDGMENT 1. - The aforesaid petition has been filed against the order dated 12.4.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Dausa, in Cr. Revision Petition No. 18/2002, whereby revision petition was dismissed affirming the order dated 30.10.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Dausa, whereby application filed by Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Heard learned for the parties, and perused the material available on record. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that a complaint was filed regarding the investigation, which was forwarded to the Director General of Police, and the matter was enquired into by the Inspector of General of Police, and report has been submitted. Further enquiry was recommended, and thereafter, the State Government decided to withdraw the criminal case. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on technical grounds. The application filed before the trial Court has been placed on record as Annexure -1. learned counsel submits that enquiry report-was also submitted before the trial Court, which is annexed as Annexure-l. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the decision of State to withdraw the case is not proper, as there are cross cases between the parties, and only one case has been decided to be withdrawn. He further submitted that the cases before the trial Court have reached to the stage of completion of trial, as such the impugned orders of the Courts below are proper. He placed reliance on the judgment in case of Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain, 2005 (1) Western Law Cases (SC) Criminal 402 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the case was about to be over, the same should not have been allowed to be withdrawn by holding that the trial had been pending for over the years. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order, clearly shows that both the Courts below have specifically conducted that no reason has been given by the State to withdraw the case. The contention of petitioner that enquiry report was submitted before the trial Court, is not fortified by the Annexure-1, as there is no enquiry report at Annexure-1, and it is only a letter dated 1.8.2001 written by District Collector. The contention of petitioner that enquiry report was submitted before the trial Court, is not fortified by the Annexure-1, as there is no enquiry report at Annexure-1, and it is only a letter dated 1.8.2001 written by District Collector. For the sake of argument if assume that enquiry report was placed before the trial Court than also it has no bearing on the application in hand as this enquiry report was never acted upon and no further investigation has been conducted as recommended. Learned Public Prosecutor could not show any reason for withdrawing the case. The application filed by the State under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was baseless as no reason has been disclose in the same. The state has not shown any reason that by withdrawal of the case there will be harmony between the parties, rather the counsel for complainant has opposed the prayer on the ground that the cross case has not been decided to be withdrawn. The learned trial Court has passed a proper order, which has been affirmed by the revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition. There is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Courts below. In the garb of second revision, the instant petition is totally baseless, and misconceived. It is not a fit case to interfere under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Consequently, the misc. petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******