( 1 ) THROUGH this petition, combined order passed by Ms. Kamini Lau, Metropolitan magistrate in case FIR Nos. 336/93 and 337/ 93 whereby the applications of the learned assistant Public Prosecutor moved under section 321 Cr. P. C for withdrawal of the cases were declined, has been assailed. Both the cases were registered on the complaints of rival political parties viz. BJP and Congress.

( 2 ) ABOUT a decade back there were elections in Delhi Cantonment area. Leaders and workers had collected in their respective camps. Petitioner Smt. Kiran Choudhary of congress was at her election office when the procession of the BJP Workers was proceeding with long line of vehicles who were raising slogans at highest pitch in threatening tones. She requested the police to stop them but all of a sudden crowd passing in front of her office started pelting stones not only at the office but also at the photographers who were taking their pictures. The mob then descended with sticks which had flags on them and started criminally intimidating the workers of the petitioner. Similar report was received by the local police from one Sh. Inder sen Mangal, Election Officer of BJP regarding attack by the office bearers and workers of smt Kiran Chaudhary on them. When the rally reached her office there was lot of hue and cry in the entire baza r and vehicles which were going back were stopped by her workers by putting an ambassador car on the road. They also are alleged to have pelted stones on the said vehicles and attacked BJP workers with lathis.

( 3 ) AS a consequence cases were registered against both of them and their workers and charge sheets were filed in the court of MM for various offences. For more than 10 years, the proceedings have remained stand still without any tangible progress. The matter was considered by the State Government for the purpose of withdrawal of the cases in order to create a congenial and peaceful atmosphere in the area and preferably to avoid furtherance of enmity between the workers of respective political parties. Consequently, the learned APP moved an application under Section 321 Cr. P. C for withdrawal of the cases.

( 4 ) LEARNED MM dismissed the application mainly on the premise that nowhere in the application it is disclosed whether the cause of public interest would be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuance of the prosecution as the sole consideration for which the APP when he decides to withdraw from the prosecution is larger, factor of administration of justice-not political favours nor party pressures nor like concerns and since it is the duty of the court while granting permission to the public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution to satisfy itself that the public function of the PP has not been improperly exercised and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes and further where the prosecution is at the initial stage and the acts of violence or destruction of State Property are alleged then it is required to be seen as to what ends of the public justice would serve when such case is withdrawn and since the grounds raised by APP go to suggest that election violence is being justified to some extent, the request for withdrawal was not bonafide and made with ulterior motive only to assist political aspirations of accused persons.

( 5 ) THE close scrutiny and scanning of the impugned order shows that the learned MM was swayed and persuaded more by extraneous factors than the actual facts and considerations relevant for dealing with application under Section 321 Cr. P. C. Section 321 Cr. P. C provides 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 judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for w