The withdrawal from prosecution should be in the interest of administration of justice and should not be sought covertly with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law.

The revision is against the rejection by the court below of an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under section 321 Cr.P.C. 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for withdrawal from prosecution of the petitioners-accused; and the miscellaneous petition is one under section 482 of the Code for the quashing of the proceedings in a case pending against the petitioners therein in that court. As it is averred by the petitioners in the miscellaneous petition that the case giving rise to the petition is foisted against them by the petitioners in the Criminal Revision Petition on account of the fact that they are assisting the 2nd respondent therein, the revision petition and the miscellaneous petition were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. We will take up the revision in the first instance. The facts briefly stated are as follows :- Crime No. 63/78 of the Malappuram Police Station was registered on the basis of the information (complaint) given by the second respondent, in the revision, a Harijan agricultural labourer on 20-1-1978 stating inter alia that the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 5 O'clock in the evening that day, attacked him at Ponmala, and in furtherance of their common object they inflicted injuries on his person by beating him with hands and also with sticks, and the 3rd petitioner (3rd accused) Mullappally Alikutty stabbing him with a knife and thereby causing incised wound on his forehead. After investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malappuram, laid charge sheet before the court against all the accused (petitioners) under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. after hearing both sides, the Magistrate took the case on his file on 23-3-1978 as C.C. No. 126 of 1978; on 27-3-1978 all the accused surrendered themselves before the court and they were enlarged on bail; and after ensuring that copies of the relevant records were furnished to the accused (petitioners), the case was posted to 11-5-1978 for framing charges. In the meanwhile, on 19-4-1978, the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, informed the magistrate that he proposed to have further investigation of the case conducted by another officer, since the investigation already made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malappuram, was one-sided an perfunctory; he, therefore, requested the court that 'further proceedings in the case might be stopped in the interest of justice'. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time awaiting the report of further investigation. At last, on 13-11-1978, with a lost hope of the report, the Magistrate framed charge under sections 143, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. against the accused (petitioners) and read out and explained it in Malayalam. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and demanded trial.

3. On 24-1-1979, nearly 13 months after the occurrence, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted a report stating inter alia that on going through the case diary and connected records available in the case, he was of the opinion that it was a fit case in which permission was to be sought to withdraw the accused from prosecution; the withdrawal of the case would satisfy the object of law, and it would not in any way tend to further the mischief the law sought to prevent; it would not also be conducive to the interest of justice to continue the prosecution against the accused since the prosecution with remote possibility of their conviction would rouse bitterness and antagonism between the parties; and on the ground of inexpediency of continuing prosecution inexpediency of continuing prosecution for reasons of State and public policy, it was only just and fair that the court exercised its discretion in favour of the withdrawal of the accused from prosecution. The Magistrate issued notice to the 2nd respondent herein, who was the de-facto complainant. In his objections the sec