The paramount consideration for the court in accepting or rejecting a petition under S.321 Cr. P.C. is the interest of administration of justice.

N.Dhinakar, J.

This revision is against the orders of the Sessions Court refusing to grant permission to the prosecution to withdraw a case under S.321 Cr. P. C.

2. The case of the prosecution, shorn of unnecessary details, can be summarised as follows. A political leader was attacked by somebody on 6.8.1992 which resulted in a counter attack on the next date as his followers went berserk at Parappanangadi and forced the shopkeepers to down their shutters. They also made road blocks at Anchappura by using granite boulders and electric poles. On getting information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Parappanangadi proceeded to the place with a posse of policemen and on seeing the police party, the rampaging mob consisting approximately 100 people, attacked them with sticks, pieces of rocks, soda bottles and iron rods stating that the policemen would be done to death. Many of the police personnel accompanying the Sub Inspector were injured in the incident. The Sub Inspector could identify ten persons who were involved in the rioting. The lathi-wielding policemen repulsed the attack of the accused persons. The Sub Inspector took the injured policemen to the hospital and later registered a suo mote F.I.R. against 100 persons who include the ten identified persons. The Circle Inspector of Police, Tirurangadi investigated the case and filed a final report charge sheeting the accused, seventeen in number, for offences punishable under Ss.143, 147, 148, 323 and 307 read with S.149 IPC. Accused 2,840,14 and 17 could not be arrested as they were absconding during the committal proceedings. The Judicial First Class Magistrate split up the case against the absconding accused and committed twelve accused persons to stand their trial before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The Sessions Judge took the case on file, made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirur. Charges could not be framed as all the accused have not entered their appearance. In the meanwhile, the prosecution has come out with a petition under S.321 Cr. P. C. for withdrawing the case.

3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on consideration of the petition filed under S.321 Cr. P. C. dismissed the said petition. In the said petition filed under S.321 Cr. P. C. the prosecution took up two grounds and they are: (1) The prosecution will not be able to produce sufficient, creditworthy and reliable evidence to sustain the charge against the accused and it would result only in waste of time of court and public money and energy and it will not further the object of law. (2) An atmosphere of goodwill have been restored among the local people and if the prosecution is pursued it will mar the atmosphere of good will and calm. The Sessions Judge rejected both the contentions.

4. It is now a well settled principle that when a petition is filed under S.321 Cr. P.C. for withdrawal, the Public Prosecutor who is responsible for conducting the case, must apply his mind and then decide whether a petition for withdrawal can be filed, and if he is satisfied that the prosecution can be withdrawn, he may file a petition. Then, the court should look into the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor and satisfy itself before giving any permission for such withdrawal. The Assistant Sessions judge, in my view, correctly held that the Public Prosecutor was not justified in filing a petition under S.321 Cr. P. C. for withdrawing the case. If the Court is not satisfied that the request of the Public Prosecutor will not serve the ends of justice and the administration of justice in the process will suffer and if it is sought with an ulterior motive, then the Court can refuse to grant permission. The paramount consideration for the Court in accepting or rejecting a petition under S.321 Cr. P.C. is the interest of administration of justice and this must be the sole consideration while deciding a petition under S.321 Cr.P.C.

5. The Assistant Sessions Judge held mat the police report filed under S.17