Dr. Manjula Chellur, J.

These two Criminal Revision Petitions are filed by third parties unconnected with the issue on hand but claims to be public spirited persons. In other words, they are not personally affected by the impugned order of the Magistrate. The learned Single Judge placed the matter before the Bench hearing Public Interest Litigation as it could only be entertained by a Division Bench. The brief facts that led to filing of these two Criminal Revision Petitions are as under.

2. A suo motu complaint came to be registered by the Sub Inspector of Police of Edavanna Police Station in Malappuram District resulting in registration of Crime NO.286/2008 on 27.11.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 195A and Section 506 IPC. As a matter of fact, FIR indicates that a secret enquiry came to be conducted as per the source report No.260/Camp/08/M.M. District Police Officer, Malappuram, at 13.30 hours received from District Police Superintendent which became the basis for registering the above crime. The Case Diary and original secret enquiry report along with FIR were sent to the Magistrate concerned.

3. As per the said report, on 20.11.2008 between 20.45 and 21.15 hours, the accused, during a public meeting conducted in connection with the closing ceremony of the Conference of Eastern Region of Indian Union Muslim League (for short IUML) held at Edavanna Pootlluruthy Ground is said to have declared that, “if they stand as witness in the court against the workers of IUML, they would not come out of the court with their legs with which they had gone inside and will ultimately be eradicated from the earth once and for all”. Subsequently, final report came to be filed along with 161 statements on 29.03.2009. After taking cognizance, CC No.135 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri came to be registered.

4. During the pendency of the above case, the Deputy Director of Prosecution submitted an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., expressing his intention to withdraw from the prosecution. The Magistrate on 04.01.2001 granted permission to withdraw from the prosecution. This is the subject of controversy in the present Revision Petitions.

5. According to the petitioners, the order of the Magistrate dated 04.01.2001 is opposed to law so also facts and circumstances of the case. When inflammatory speech came to be made by 4th respondent (accused), it is nothing but a threat to the witnesses which ultimately persuaded the witnesses not to depose against the accused in a sensational political murder case. The dispute was not in the nature of private one or a petty one. It was nothing but a sabotage of investigation and preventing prosecution in a case of brutal murder. No legally acceptable ground whatsoever was put forth for withdrawal from the prosecution. After Union Democratic Front (UDF) came to power with IUML support, the case came to be withdrawn as the same was launched while Left Democratic Front (LDF) was in power. Contending that the decision of the Magistrate is perverse and illegal, they further urge that the said decision is nothing but abdication of court's authority. The Court, totally ignoring the sensitivity involved in the case where one James Augustine Master was murdered, proceeded to pass the impugned order without any valid reasons. The Magistrate ought to have considered the executive function to be performed by the Prosecutor which ought to be exercised independently. Except for the purpose of furthering the cause of public justice, no complaint could be withdrawn. The impugned order results in destruction of public justice and public policy as observed in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 877) and so also in State of Kerala v. Varkala Radhakrishnan (ILR 2009(1) Kerala 721) is the contention of the petitioners.

6. As against this, the contention of the State as well as the 4th respondent (accused before the trial court) is as under. The Criminal Revi