JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two writ petitions being WPA (P) No. 67 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition for the sake of convenience) and WPA (P) No. 68 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition for the sake of convenience), filed as public interest litigations, have been heard analogously as they involve similar issues.

2. Both the writ petitions have been specially assigned before this Bench.

3. Both the writ petitioners have claimed themselves to be advocates by profession and practising before the Courts of Contai, Tamluk and Haldia. Writ petitioners in both the writ petitions have been represented by the same set of learned advocates.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the prayers made in the first writ petition. He has contended that, on February 10, 2020, writ petitioner of the first writ petition came to know that, State gave instructions to the respondent No. 6 in such writ petition to apply under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw 4 criminal cases in respect of which charge-sheets had been filed. He has pointed out that, in 3 criminal cases, charge-sheets have been filed, inter alia under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In one of the criminal cases, charge-sheet has been filed, inter alia under Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the prayers made in the second writ petition and contended that, orders passed by the administrative authority deciding to undertake an exercise under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code is under challenge in the writ petitions.

6. Adverting to the facts of the 2nd writ petitions, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that, the writ petitioner came to learn on June 9, 2020 that State gave instructions to the respondent No. 5 therein to withdraw prosecution of several criminal cases. Two applications had been filed under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code in such cases on the premise that, peace had been restored between the parties and that the incident involved in the police complaints were generated from a political turmoil.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the applications purported to be under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code were taken up for hearing on June 9, 2020 itself when the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Medinipur, by an order dated June 9, 2020 allowed the same.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that similarly on June 10, 2020, in 4 other cases, the State respondents gave instructions to the respondent No. 5 for withdrawing prosecution of such cases. On the basis of such instructions, for applications under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of such cases were filed in June 10, 2020 and allowed on the same date.

9. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, in aggregate, 6 criminal cases had been withdrawn, which are the subject matter in the 2nd writ petition. In respect of all the 6 criminal cases, charge-sheets had been submitted before the jurisdictional Court. Charge-sheets had been filed in 5 criminal cases inter alia under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge- sheet in respect of one of the criminal cases had been filed under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the charge-sheets in all the criminal cases would demonstrate that, the charges are serious and that, the criminal cases involve commission of heinous crimes.

11. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has referred to Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has contended that, State gave consent to withdraw the prosecution in respec