Ashwani Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 25 in case no. 3734 of 2002(State of U.P. Versus Fazl -Ul - Rahman and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 435, 436, 338, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to crime no. 231A of 2001 police station Chowk, district Lucknow whereby the application moved by Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal from prosecution was rejected by court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 25, district Lucknow. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2001, on the occasion of festival of 'Barawafat', there was a large gathering at Tile Waali Masjid to celebrate the festival. In the morning at about 5.00 a.m. one Samsuddin along with Naimuddin, Mohd. Chand and Bablu started protesting upon receiving information of misbehavior of some police personnel with a girl of the vicinity. The protest resulted into indiscriminate firing by police personnel resulting in the death one Naimuddin who sustained firearm injury and died on the spot. Samsuddin, father of the deceased, lodged an F.I.R. at 8.00 a.m. at police station Chowk, district Lucknow against Rakesh Kumar, Mahendra Kumar, Suresh Chandra Tiwari. The same was registered at case crime no. 231 of 2001 under Section 302/294 I.P.C. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner no. 1 is respectable citizen and is Shahi Imam of Tile Wali Masjid and is respected highly by people of all communities. He had reached at the place of the incident to pacify the people, who had assembled there and he is a witness in the F.I.R. of case crime no. 231 of 2012 which was registered against the police personnel who had fired upon the protesters. Further the case of the petitioner is that after registration of the F.I.R. at case crime no. 231 of 2001, local police lodged three more F.I.Rs. in order to implicate the protesters in the incident. These FIRs were registered at case crime no. 231A of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 435, 436, 338, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 of criminal law Amendment Act, case crime no. 231K of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 436, 336, 452, 332, 393, 506 I.P.C. and case crime no. 231Q of 2001 under Section 395, 436, 295, 427 I.P.C., police station Chowk, district Lucknow. The allegation in all the three F.I.R.s against petitioners is that they instigated the protesters but no specific or overt act is attributed to them. All the three cases were investigated by the police but in the first information report which was lodged by father of deceased at case crime no. 231 of 2001 under Section 302/294 I.P.C., the investigating agency submitted a final report and exonerated the police personnel. However, in case crime no. 231A, 231K and 231Q of 2001 the police submitted charge - sheet. After submission of the charge -sheet, the State government on appraisal of the entire material on record decided to invoke the power under Section 321 Cr.P.C. relating to withdrawal from the prosecution. On 5th April, 2006, Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal from prosecution annexed as annexure 9 to this petition. Learned Magistrate after hearing the parties passed an order rejecting the application moved under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate passed on an application moved under Section 321 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate dated 14.3.2007 is not in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgments. Sections 321 Cr.P.C. deals with the withdrawal from prosecution: - The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and upon such withdrawal; (a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences; (b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences; Provided that where such offence - - (i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or (ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or (iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government,or (iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution. Learned counsel has pointed out that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. observed that there should be fulfillment of four conditions for withdrawing from the prosecution; (i) in the interest of justice, (ii) public interest, (iii) that there should be every chance of acquittal if the trial proceeds the accused shall be put to great inconvenience and (iv) some of the accused have not appeared. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheonandan Paswan versus State of Biahr and others reported in (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases page 288, paragraphs 77 to 79 of the judgment reads as follows : - "77. Section 321 reads as follows : "321. Withdrawal from prosecution - -The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court at any time before the Judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal: - (a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences; (b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences." (Proviso omitted) This Section enables the Public prosecutor, in charge of the case to withdraw from the prosecution of any person at any time before the Judgment is pronounced, but this application for withdrawal has to get the consent of the Court and if the Court gives consent for such withdrawal the accused will be discharged if no charge has been framed or acquitted if charge has been framed or where no such charge is required to be framed. It clothes the public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of any person, accused of an offence both when no evidence is taken or even if entire evidence has been taken. The outer limit for the exercise of this power is "at any time before the Judgment is pronounced". The Section gives no indication as to the grounds on which the Public Prosecutor may make the application, or the considerations on which the Court is to grant its consent. The initiative is that of the Public Prosecutor and what the Court has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. The judicial function implicit in the exercise of the judicial discretion for granting the consent would normally mean that the Court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised, or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. The Court's function is to give consent. This section does not obligate the Court to record reasons before consent is given. However, I should not be taken to hold that consent of the Court is a matter of course. When the Public Prosecutor makes the application for withdrawal after taking into consideration all the materials before him, the Court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such materials and on such consideration, either gives consent or declines consent. The section should not be construed to mean that the Court has to give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. If on a reading of the order giving consent, a higher Court is satisfied that such consent was given on an overall consideration of the materials available, the order giving consent has necessarily to be upheld". The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is clear that the court while granting or refusing consent under Section 321 Cr.P.C. performs supervisory and not adjudicatory function. It is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The acquittal or discharge orders under Section 321 Cr.P.C. are not the same as the normal final orders in criminal cases. The conclusion will not be backed by a detailed discussion of the evidence in the case of acquittal or absence of prima facie case or groundlessness in the case of discharge. All that the court has to see is whether the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. The court, after considering these facets of the case, will have to see whether the application suffers from such improprieties or illegalities as to cause manifest injustice if consent is given. The Section should not be construed to mean that the court has to give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. If on a reading of the order giving consent, a higher court is satisfied that such consent was given on an overall consideration of the materials available, the order giving consent has necessarily to be upheld. In another recent judgment of Hon'jble Supreme Court of India, Name Dasrat versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 395, the apex Court has held as follows : - The provision of Section 321 Cr.P.C. enables the Public Prosecutor Incharge of the case to withdraw the prosecuiton of any person at any time before the judgment is pronounced but there has to be consent of the court. If the court gives consent for such withdrawal, the accused shall be discharged if no charge has been framed but if the charge has been framed, such accused will be acquitted. The Section does not provide any ground on which Public prosecutor can apply for withdrawal of the prosecution. The Section also does not specify the consideration on which the court is to grant its consent. In these circumstances, the only implication which arises is that the court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice. The function of the court is to give consent. The court is not obliged to record the reasons for giving its consent. The court is also not required to give detailed reason or for giving consent. If the court is satisfied that the consent should be given on consideration of the material available, the order giving consent is perfectly justified". Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the State government exercised its power not on some extraneous consideration. The application was made in good faith and public interest. In another case of State of Orrisa versus C. Mohapatra, AIR 1977 SCC 903, it has been held that paramount consideration in such a case must be in the interest of administration of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in which consent should be granted or refused. It must define on the facts and circumstances of each case in the light of what is necessary in order to promote the ends of justice. In the present case, it may be pointed that the case lodged from the petitioner's side i.e. case crime no. 231 under Section 302 and 294 I.P.C., the investigating agency exonerated the accused persons and in the present case where there was hardly any cogent and reliable evidence against the petitioners, the Investigating agency submitted charge -sheet as stated above. No overt act or any specific allegation has been collected in evidence against the petitioners. To repeat again, the merits of the case are not to be seen while withdrawing the prosecution as laid down by the apex court but certainly it should be in the interest of justice and public interest, the withdrawal of the case would be permitted. Learned counsel states that in the present case the application has been moved in good faith without any mala fide intention and in public interest. Thus, the order dated 14 th March, 2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 25 is bad in the eyes of law. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders suffers from illegality and infirmity and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 25 in case no. 3734 of 2002(State of U.P. Versus Fazl -Ul -Rahman and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 435, 436, 338, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to crime no. 231A of 2001 police station Chowk, district Lucknow is hereby quashed. The application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners namely Fazl -ul -Rahman and Abdul Mannan are discharged in case crime no. crime no. 231A of 2001, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 435, 436, 338, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act police station Chowk, district Lucknow. Order Date : - 19.5.2016;