JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of instant criminal misc. Petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Jhalrapatan in Criminal Case No. 256/2013 titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Praveen Kumar and Others as well as against the order dated 10.7.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in criminal revision no. 9/2018 whereby the application filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State of Rajasthan under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution against the petitioners has been declined and the order has been affirmed by the revisional Court.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. Petition are that the petitioners are facing trial for the accusation of committing offence under Section 332, 353 and 504 IPC. During the course of trial, an application under Sec. 321 of the Cr.P.C. came to be submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor with the averments that the State of Rajasthan has resolved to withdraw the prosecution in this case, therefore, the application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. may be allowed.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioners-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned ACJM had dismissed the application filed on behalf of State of Rajasthan vide order dated 10.4.2015 with detail reasoned order. It transpires that the State of Rajasthan had assailed the said order by way of preferring a revision petition before the learned sessions Judge but that has been rejected vide order dated 10.7.2018. It is notable that the State of Rajasthan has not preferred any further petition to challenge the orders dated 10.4.2015 and 10.7.2018.

4. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of accused with the prayer to quash the order passed by the court below and that the prosecution be stifled by allowing the application filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 321 Cr.P.C.

5. Sh. Anil Upman, counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the State of Rajasthan; which is the prosecutor in this case, does not wish to proceed against the accused petitioners and had passed the resolution and accordingly Assistant Public Prosecutor had moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution, therefore, there is no occasion for the learned trial court to dismiss the application or to continue the prosecution.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. At the first, it is made clear that the instant criminal misc. Petition is not preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan which moved the application before the learned trial court for withdrawal of the prosecution. Here in this case, challenge has been made by the accused persons. I am of the considered view that the petitioners have no locus or right to challenge the order rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The application was moved by the State of Rajasthan which was rejected by the trial court and the revision petition too has been dismissed. Thus the order declining withdrawal of the prosecution has attained finality. As far as the question raised by counsel for the petitioner that he has a right to challenge the same, this court is of the considered view that if a resolution is made by the State of Rajasthan for withdrawal of the prosecution and if it is rejected, the same does not create a right in favour of the accused to challenge the rejection of application. It is emanating from the report that the application came to be filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor with the only averment that since the State of Rajasthan has resolved to withdraw the prosecution, therefore, the same may be allowed and the prosecution may be allowed to be withdrawn. It is felt appropriate to reproduce the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the trial court:

,usDpj% 2 ekuuh; U;k;ky;A lhŒtsŒ,eŒ dksVZ >kŒ ikVu ljdkj cuke Áoh.k dqekj oxS