1. The petitioner/injured has filed this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of CPC being aggrieved by the Order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Lok Adalat in Case No.62 of 2009 for withdrawing the prosecution under section 321 of CrPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.901 of 2008 at PS Ganjbasoda against the respondents No.2 to 5 for the offences under sections 323, 294 and 506B/34 of IPC and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents No.2 to 5 on 31.12.2008. One cross case bearing Crime No.900 of 2008 was also registered at the same PS on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other six persons. The cross case filed against the petitioner and the other six persons has been pending in the Court of JMFC Basoda bearing Case No.30 of 2009 but the cross case which was filed against the respondents No.2 to 5 was withdrawn by the Government submitting an application under section 321 of CrPC and in this regard, the impugned order was passed in the Lok Adalat without application of mind. The counsel contends that when the criminal cases of the same incident have been filed against both the parties, one case which was pending against the respondents No.2 to 5 could not have been withdrawn by the Government. The application filed by the respondent/state under section 321 of CrPC was without any sufficient cause and no cause of public interest was shown in the application filed under section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of the prosecution. The said application was mala fide and learned trial Court without applying it’s mind in the facts and circumstances of the case, permitted the respondent/state to withdraw the criminal case vide impugned order.

3. The counsel further argued that on perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the said order is in cyclostyle form which indicates that it was not properly considered by the Court that where two cases were pending against each other, why one case was withdrawn by the respondent/State and so the permission granted by the trial Court is not just and proper because, it affects the rights of the petitioner/complainant as well as the other respondents i.e. co-accused. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Brijpal Singh v. Pramod Kumar and another [(2013)CRLR (MP)63], and Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2015)SCC (Cri)42], has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned PP and the counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 opposing the submissions have prayed for rejection of the petition stating that the order passed by learned trial Court is just and proper and there is no reason to interfere in the said order. The counsel further submits that the original record of the trial Court might be eliminated because, the impugned order was passed on 15.12.2012.

5. Heard the arguments at length of both the parties and perused the record.

6. On perusal of the record, it appears that two criminal cases were registered against both the parties and after investigation, both the charge-sheets were filed before the trial Court against them. One case was registered against the respondents No.2 to 5 bearing Criminal Case No.62 of 2009 for the offence under sections 323, 294 and 506B/34 of IPC and another criminal case bearing Criminal Case No.30 of 2009 was filed against the petitioner and this case is still pending before the trial court and the case is fixed for defence evidence and further date is fixed on 10.5.2016. When two criminal cases were filed about the same incident, both should have been decided by the court simultaneously. In the said circumstances, it can be concluded that the order passed by the trial Court permitting withdrawal of Criminal Case No.62 of 2009 cannot be held to be proper because, the petitioner and other co