JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners Under Section 482 Cr.RC. against the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 220/2011 (State v. Gajendra Singh & others.) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application Under Section 321 Cr.RC. submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Dholpur whereby he prayed for withdrawal of Sessions Case No. 220/2011 (State v. Gajendra Singh & Ors.) (FIR No. 6/2007) registered at Police Station Rajakhera for the offences Under Section 147, 148, 323, 341, 332, 353, 333, 283, 336/149 and Section 3 PDPP Act. 2. submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Dholpur whereby he prayed for withdrawal of Sessions Case No. 220/2011 (State v. Gajendra Singh & Ors.) (FIR No. 6/2007) registered at Police Station Rajakhera for the offences Under Section 147, 148, 323, 341, 332, 353, 333, 283, 336/149 and Section 3 PDPP Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Bihari Lai, SI, SHO, Police Station Rajakhera lodged a report at Police Station Rajakhera on 06.01.2007 which reads as under:- " bl le; eu ,l,pvks fcgkjh yky ;kno e;wdk fu0 eksgjh ,pvks 638 ds cgokys jiV ua0 245 jkst vke dk x;k gqvk okfil Fkkuk dke ykuk [kqn tqEes fy;k ntZ fd;k fd Fkkuk ls jokuk gksdj le; 10 ,,e ij jsYos QkVd /kkSyiqj igqapk rks tfj;s VsyhQksu eksckbZy ij lwpuk nh fd gjpju Bkdqj vlkekftd rRoksa ds lkFk esa gksdj cktkj jktk[ksM+k dks cUn djk jgk gSA Fkkus dk ?ksjko djk ldrkA vki rqjUr igqapdj dkuwu ,oa 'kfDr O;oLFkk vkdj laHkkysA bl bRryk ij eu ,l,pvks fcgkjhyky ;kno e; dkfu eksgj flag ua0 638 ds tks jsYos QkVd /kkSyiqj ls okfil le; 11 ,,e ij Vkmu pkSdh jktk[ksM+k ij vk;kA tgka ij gjpju Bkdqj o mldk yM+dk jktiky o gjpju ds nks yM+ds vU; ftuds uke ekywe ugha gSa o xtsUnz Bkdqj o eqUuk dk yM+dk Bkdqj fuoklh x<+h tkQj fngkSyh o djhc 200 vknfe;ksa dh HkhM+ bdV~Bh feyh ftudk usr'Ro gjpj.k Bkdqj }kjk fd;k tk jgk Fkk rFkk ftuds gkFkksa esa yksgs ds lfj;k] ykBh] bZaV iRFkj dh ryk gjpj.k Bkdqj cksyk fd cktkj rks cUn djk fn;k gS] vc bl fcgkjhyky dks ?ksj yksA bl ij gjpj.k yM+ds jktsUnz Bkdqj o eqa'kh dk yM+dk uke ugha tkurk o vU; yksxksa us eq>s ,l0,p0vks0 fcgkjhyky dks pkSdh ds lkeus pkSjkgs ij ?ksj dj ykBh lfj;k] bZaV iRFkjksa ls ekjihV djus yxs] tcfd eu ,l0,p0vks0 dkfu0 eksgj flag uEcj 638 o jktiky dkfu0 97 dh enn ls jksM+ ij yxk vkM+k V~SDVj Lojkt de V~ksyh fcuk uEcjh ds jksM tke dj fn;k Fkk] dks gVok jgk FkkA ekjihV ls esjs ftLe ij txg txg pksVsa vk;h gSaA bl HkhM+ us iqfyl pkSdh ij j[kh ljdkjh eksVj lkbZfdy vkjts 11 1 ,e 3044 dks Hkh bZaV iRFkjksa ls {kfrxzLr dj fn;k rFkk lwpuk ikdj Fkkus ls ,0,l0vkbZ0 j?kqohj flag e; tkCrk ds ekSds ij igqapk rFkk HkhM+ dks le>kbZ'k fd;k o dkfu0 jktiky uEcj 97 dks pkSdh ij NksM+dj ogka ls jokuk gks x;kA eSa ,0,l0vkbZ0 tkCrk dks gejkg ysdj dLck jktk[ksM+k esa dkuwu o 'kkfUr O;oLFkk dk;e djrk gqvk okfil Fkkuk vk;k rFkk gjpj.k Bkdqj us eq> ,l0,p0vks0 dks tfj;s VsyhQksu esjs eksckbZy uEcj ij /kedh nh fd esjh ikVhZ dk 'kklu gS] vxj rwus esjs f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh uEcj ij /kedh nh fd esjh ikVhZ dk 'kklu gS] vxj rwus esjs f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh rks rsjh ,slh rSlh djok nwaxkA pwafd gjpj.k Bkdqj o mlds yM+dksa o mlds lkFk ,df=r HkhM+ dk ;g d'R; tqeZ /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 332] 353] 336] 283] 427 Hkk0na0la0 o 3 ihMhihih ,DV dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA vr% okfilh dj eqdnek 6@07 o nQk mijksDr esa dk;e dj rQ~rh'k Jh jktsUnz dqekj] vk0ih0,l0 efu;k ds ftEes dh x;hA izfr;ka ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fu;ekuqlkj tkjh dh xbZA " 3. On the basis of above report, a formal FIR No. 6/2007 was registered at Police Station Rajakhera for the offences Under Section 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 283, 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioners accused and the trial commenced. 4. During trial the court had examined 9 witnesses. The State Government through its Special Secretary, Home-Cum-Joint Legal Remembrancer, had issued direction on dated 12.05.2015 wherein it was directed that in the aforementioned FIR, regarding which criminal case is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in the form of State v. Gajendra Singh & Others , be withdrawn in public interest. In pursuance of it, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application along with the letter of Special Secretary, Home-Cum-Joint Legal Remembrancer Under Section 321 Cr.RC. for withdrawal of the prosecution which resulted in dismissal vide impugned order dated 15.07.2015 by the learned trial court. Hence, this misc. petition. 5. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in police encounter an innocent public person was killed and to seek justice and punish the culprits public made demonstration to save themselves and their lives. Police registered this false case against the petitioners to pressurise them not to agitate the matter of encounter and registered a false criminal case against the petitioners and charge sheeted them in the aforementioned criminal case. When these facts were brought to the knowledge of the Government, the matter was ordered to be withdrawn. He further submits that examination of 9 witnesses is no ground for rejection of the application as the prosecution can withdraw the matter at any time, before the pronouncement of judgement. He submits that Additional PP while filing an application clearly mentioned that the matter was directed to be withdrawn in public interest and argued the circumstances in which criminal proceedings were initiated Without considering this fact in the right perspective, learned trial court wrongly dismissed the application of Additional PR therefore, impugned order may be quashed and application submitted by the learned Addition PP may be allowed. 6. Mr. NS Dhakad, learned PP submits that a committee is working at higher level which after examining the matter issued directions for withdrawal of the prosecution case. 6. Mr. NS Dhakad, learned PP submits that a committee is working at higher level which after examining the matter issued directions for withdrawal of the prosecution case. In the case in hand, prima facie it seems that it is counter blast of encounter case, therefore, prosecution case should be withdrawn. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned PP. 8. Section 321 reads as under:- "321. Withdrawal from prosecution. The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgement is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,- (a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences; (b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences; Provided that where such offence- (i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or (ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or (iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or (iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution." 9. From the bare perusal of above provision, it is clear that prosecution can withdraw with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgement is pronounced and if it is being made after framing of charge the accused shall be acquitted in respect of such offences, but if it relates to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends or investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment Act or involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging of the Central Government or was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution. 10. The case in hand, belongs only to state affairs, therefore, permission of Central Government is not required. 11. In the matter of State of Punjab v. Union of India & others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 335 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:- 12. As a part of an overall settlement between the Central Government and the employees of the P & T Department, the State Government took a policy decision that in all cases which did not involve acts of serious personal violence or material destruction of State property, the prosecutions against the employees of the P & T Department who went on one day's token strike should be withdrawn. The applications under Section 494 Cr.PC., 1898 moved by the Public Prosecutor in accordance therewith were allowed by the Magistrates and the respondent-employees were acquitted. But the High Court set aside the orders of acquittal. Allowing the appeals Supreme Court held that it would certainly not subserve the interests of justice to direct retrial of the respondents despite the Settlement arrived at, after a lapse of nearly 18 years. Such a course would give rise to unnecessary industrial unrest for no reasons whatever. 13. In the matter of Abdul Karim etc. v. State of Karnataka & others. Such a course would give rise to unnecessary industrial unrest for no reasons whatever. 13. In the matter of Abdul Karim etc. v. State of Karnataka & others. reported in 2000(2) Supreme (Cr.) 381 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Section 321 contemplates consent by the court in a supervisory and not an adjudicatory manner. What the court must ensure is that the application for withdrawal has been properly made, after independent consideration by the Public Prosecutor and in furtherance of public interest. Section 321 enables the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of any accused. The discretion exercisable under Section 321 is fettered only by a consent from the court on a consideration of the material before it. What is necessary to satisfy the section is to see that the Public Prosecutor has acted in good faith and the exercise of discretion by him is proper." It was further observed that the law, therefore, is that though the Government may have ordered, directed or asked a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from a prosecution, it is for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind to all the relevant material and, in good faith, to be satisfied thereon that the public interest will be served by his withdrawal from the prosecution. In turn, the court has to be satisfied, after considering all that material, that the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind independently thereto, that the Public Prosecutor, acting in good faith, is of the opinion that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest, and that such withdrawal will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice. It was further observed that it must follow that the application under Section 321 must aver that the Public Prosecutor is, in good faith, satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause injustice. The material that the Public Prosecutor has considered must be set out, briefly but concisely, in the application or in an affidavit annexed to the application or, in a given case, placed before the court, with its permission, in a sealed envelope. The court has to give an informed consent. The material that the Public Prosecutor has considered must be set out, briefly but concisely, in the application or in an affidavit annexed to the application or, in a given case, placed before the court, with its permission, in a sealed envelope. The court has to give an informed consent. It must be satisfied that this material can reasonably lead to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution will serve the public interest; but it is not for the court to weigh the material. The court must be satisfied that the Public Prosecutor has considered the material and, in good faith, reached the conclusion that his withdrawal from the prosecution will serve the public interest. The court must also consider whether the grant of consent may thwart or stifle the course of law or result in manifest injustice. If, upon such consideration, the court accords consent, it must make such order on the application as will indicate to a higher court that it has done all that the law requires it to do before granting consent. 14. In the matter of Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain & another reported in (2005) 2 SCC 377 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Every crime is an offence against the society and if the accused committed an offence, society demands that he should be punished. Punishing the person who perpetrated the crime is an essential requirement for the maintenance of law and order and peace in the society. Therefore, the withdrawal of the prosecution shall be permitted only when valid reasons are made out for the same. It was further observed that the law is very clear that the withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in the interest of justice. Even if the Government directs the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution and an application is filed to that effect, the court must consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether the withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice. If the case is likely to end in an acquittal and the continuance of the case is only causing severe harassment to the accused, the court may permit withdrawal of the prosecution. If the case is likely to end in an acquittal and the continuance of the case is only causing severe harassment to the accused, the court may permit withdrawal of the prosecution. If the withdrawal of prosecution is likely to bury the dispute and bring about harmony between the parties and it would be in the best interest of justice, the court may allow the withdrawal of prosecution. The discretion under Section 321 Code of Criminal procedure is to be carefully exercised by the Court having due regard to all the relevant facts and shall not be exercised to stifle the prosecution which is being done at the instance of the aggrieved parties or the State for redressing their grievance." 15. In the matter of Vijay Kumar Baldev Mishra @ Sharma v. State of Maharashtra reported in JT 2007(7) SC 206 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:- Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for withdrawal from prosecution at the instance of the public prosecutor or Assistant public prosecutor. Indisputably therefor the consent of the Court is necessary. Application of mind on the part of the Court, therefore, is necessary in regard to the grounds for withdrawal from the prosecution in respect of any one or more of the offences for which the appellant is tried. The provisions of TADA could be attracted only in the event of one or the other of the four 'things' specified in Nalini (supra) is found applicable and not otherwise. The Review Committee made recommendations upon consideration of all relevant facts. It came to its opinion upon considering the materials on record. It was further observed that while refusing to grant permission, the Designated Court, in our opinion, was not correct in expressing its opinion on the merits of the matter and the effect of confessions made in terms of the provisions of TADA. It was, however, also not necessary to consider as to whether, the action of the public prosecutor as also the State was bona fide or not. Moreover, bona fide on the part of the public prosecutor itself cannot automatically lead to grant of consent. There are other circumstances also which are required to be taken into consideration. 16. Here, it is not a case where Additional PP is not satisfied with the decision of the Government. Rather learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Moreover, bona fide on the part of the public prosecutor itself cannot automatically lead to grant of consent. There are other circumstances also which are required to be taken into consideration. 16. Here, it is not a case where Additional PP is not satisfied with the decision of the Government. Rather learned Public Prosecutor Mr. N.S. Dhakad, appearing on behalf of the State submits, application submitted was in public interest and in good faith and based on the Government policy decision. Therefore, further word "consent" as used in Section 321 Cr.PC. that is interpreted as "supervisory" and not "adjudicatory manner" and court should have satisfied itself that the application for withdrawal was filed by the PP is bona fidely or not. 17. From the perusal of impugned order, there is no iota of observation that application is filed malafidely. 18. As argued that the public was agitating for getting justice as murder was committed by the police officials and the police was giving it colouring as the case of encounter, therefore, considering this fact it seems that at higher level decision for withdrawal was taken and in view of it learned Additional PP moved an application which should have been allowed. 19. As argued, this prosecution is counter product of police encounter case and considering this fact higher level committee took decision in public interest that it should be withdrawn and after considering all these facts learned PP moved an application for withdrawal. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is not in public interest. After examination of 9 witnesses is also no bar for withdrawing. Prosecution can be withdrawn at any time before the pronouncement of judgement. Without considering all these facts learned trial court rejected the application, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable which is hereby quashed and set aside and the application preferred by the Additional PP for withdrawal of Sessions Case No. 220/2011 (State v. Gajendra Singh & others.) qua the petitioners is allowed and petitioners are acquitted from the offences charged for on the basis of withdrawal of prosecution. *******