JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of instant criminal misc. Petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Jhalrapatan in Criminal Case No. 256/2013 titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Praveen Kumar and Others as well as against the order dated 10.7.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in criminal revision no. 9/2018 whereby the application filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State of Rajasthan under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution against the petitioners has been declined and the order has been affirmed by the revisional Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. Petition are that the petitioners are facing trial for the accusation of committing offence under Section 332, 353 and 504 IPC. During the course of trial, an application under Sec. 321 of the Cr.P.C. came to be submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor with the averments that the State of Rajasthan has resolved to withdraw the prosecution in this case, therefore, the application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. may be allowed. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioners-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned ACJM had dismissed the application filed on behalf of State of Rajasthan vide order dated 10.4.2015 with detail reasoned order. It transpires that the State of Rajasthan had assailed the said order by way of preferring a revision petition before the learned sessions Judge but that has been rejected vide order dated 10.7.2018. It is notable that the State of Rajasthan has not preferred any further petition to challenge the orders dated 10.4.2015 and 10.7.2018. 4. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of accused with the prayer to quash the order passed by the court below and that the prosecution be stifled by allowing the application filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 321 Cr.P.C. 5. Sh. Anil Upman, counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the State of Rajasthan; which is the prosecutor in this case, does not wish to proceed against the accused petitioners and had passed the resolution and accordingly Assistant Public Prosecutor had moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution, therefore, there is no occasion for the learned trial court to dismiss the application or to continue the prosecution. 6. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. At the first, it is made clear that the instant criminal misc. Petition is not preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan which moved the application before the learned trial court for withdrawal of the prosecution. Here in this case, challenge has been made by the accused persons. I am of the considered view that the petitioners have no locus or right to challenge the order rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The application was moved by the State of Rajasthan which was rejected by the trial court and the revision petition too has been dismissed. Thus the order declining withdrawal of the prosecution has attained finality. As far as the question raised by counsel for the petitioner that he has a right to challenge the same, this court is of the considered view that if a resolution is made by the State of Rajasthan for withdrawal of the prosecution and if it is rejected, the same does not create a right in favour of the accused to challenge the rejection of application. It is emanating from the report that the application came to be filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor with the only averment that since the State of Rajasthan has resolved to withdraw the prosecution, therefore, the same may be allowed and the prosecution may be allowed to be withdrawn. It is felt appropriate to reproduce the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the trial court: ,usDpj% 2 ekuuh; U;k;ky;A lhŒtsŒ,eŒ dksVZ >kŒ ikVu ljdkj cuke Áoh.k dqekj oxSjk eqds'k psyk;r cxSjk ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ uEcj 54@13 /kkjk 332] 353 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ Fkkuk >kŒ ikVu vkxkeh is'kh fnukad 23-1-2015 ÁkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 321 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ Ádj.k okil ysus ckcr~ egksn;] mijksDr Ádj.k ds Øe esa lknj uez fuosnu gS dh Jheku~ fof'k”V 'kklu lfpo x`g ,oa la;qDr fof/k ijke'khZ x`g ¼xzqi&10½ foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqj ds i= Øekad ,QŒ 13¼13½@x`g 10@2014 t;iqj fnukad 16-12-2014 }kjk mDr Ádj.k dks ekuuh; jktLFkku ls okil fy, tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vkns'k dh Áfr layXu dj Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd mDr Ádj.k dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls okil fy, tkus ds mfpr vkns'k Qjekus dh d`ik djsaA Jheku~ dks lknj ÁLrqr gSA layXu vkns'k dh ÁfrA fnukad% 24-12-2014 Hkonh; ,lMh@& lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd ÁFke ,ŒlhŒtsŒ,eŒ dksVZ >kŒ ikVu 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. K. Ajeet, 2021 SCC 510 has propounded that the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. must contain the plea that the withdrawal would be in the broad ends of public justice and withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons. The Public Prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution. The application should have been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not with a view to thwart or stifle the process of law. A public interest must be involved in the decision of withdrawal of prosecution. 9. This court takes note of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajeet (supra), particularly the relevant paras read as under: “The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. can now be formulated: (i) Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution. (ii) The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice. (iii) The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution. (iv) While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the public prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons. (v) In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the court exercises a judicial function but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that: (a) The function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course or justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that: (a) The function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course or justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. (b) The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. (c) the application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given. (d) The grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice. (e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the public prosecutor is duty bound to maintain. (vi) While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution sub-serves the administration of justice, the court would be justified in scrutinizing the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especially where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated. (vii) In a situation where both the trial judge and the revisional court have concurred in granting or refusing consent, this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings. The court may in exercise of the well-settled principles attached to the exercise of this jurisdiction, interfere in a case where there has been a failure of the trial judge or of the High Court to apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhold consent.” 10. Thus in view of above, following the judgment referred to supra, this court hold that the withdrawal of prosecution would not sub-serve the administration of justice as well as the withdrawal of the prosecution can only be sought in the parameters referred to in the case mentioned supra. 11. Here in this case, a bare perusal of the application preferred by the Assistant Public Prosecutor does not convince this court so as to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below. 11. Here in this case, a bare perusal of the application preferred by the Assistant Public Prosecutor does not convince this court so as to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below. The petition is not moved on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, rather it is filed at the instance of the accused, therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the settled legal position and following the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to supra, I do not deem it appropriate to allow the petition and to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merit and thus deserve to be rejected. 12. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. 13. The stay application also stands disposed of.