Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.

1.This criminal revision has been filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.03.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, dismissing the application moved by Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of the Case Crime No. 328 of 2010, under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Chikasi, District Hamirpur.

2.I have heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

3.Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that an application was filed by Ram Swaroop under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that revisionists had assaulted Ram Swaroop (respondent no. 2) and fired upon him on 07.03.2010 causing gun shot injuries on left hand and chest; as report was not written due to money and political pressure, he informed higher authorities and got injuries examined by the doctor on the same night.

4.Learned Magistrate ordered the investigation of the case. Whereupon, an F.I.R. was registered under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the revisionists. Public Prosecutor moved an application for withdrawing the case on the ground that public interest warrants withdrawal of the case. This application has been rejected by learned Magistrate vide order dated 05.03.2014 which has been impugned in this revision.

5.Submission of Sri K.P. Shukla is that report was called from the Police, which stated that entire incident is false, injuries have been fabricated and no internal damage has been reported by the doctor. Moreover, firing is said to have been done by revisionist no. 2 and not by revisionist no. 1. Revisionist no. 1 is a 'Shiksha Mitra' associated with School of his village and revisionist no. 2 is a retired teacher of Basic Education Department. Case has been lodged on account of village party-bandi as a counterblast to an F.I.R. lodged in respect of incident dated 02.03.2010 against Nirpat Singh who had pressurized the revisionist no. 1 to withdraw his candidature from the election of 'Pradhan'.

6.Learned A.G.A. did not oppose the revision.

7.Learned Magistrate found that after investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the revisionists under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act. Pellet injuries were found on the chest and left hand, therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie offence was not made out. Revisionist no. 1 is a life convict, currently on bail under the orders of this Court. Accused had challenged the chargesheet by means of Petition under Section 482 before this Court, wherein this Court directed them to surrender before the courts below within 30 days but they have not complied with the order. Thus, learned C.J.M. came to conclusion that neither revisionists have complied with the order of Hon'ble High Court, nor surrendered. Consequently, there is no public interest involved in withdrawing the case.

8.Submission of Sri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for revisionists is that Section 321 Cr.P.C. gives absolute discretion to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution in view of the decision given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Vs. State of M.P. and others [(2006) 3 SCC(Cri) 602]. Relevant paragraph 14 is quoted below:

"The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the Public Prosecutor and none else, and so, he cannot surrender that discretion to any one. The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but on other relevant factors as well in order to further the broad ends of justice, public order, peace and tranquility. The High Court while deciding the revision petition clearly observed that the material already available on record was insufficient to warrant conviction. The flow of facts and the possible result thereof as