HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO.276 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 05.12.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, in P.R.C.No.6 of 2001. On the basis of a report given by the petitioner- defacto complainant, the police, Dharmajigudem P.S registered a case against the respondents-accused in Crime No.72 of 1998 under Sections 143, 452, 342, 354, 384, 385 and 506 (2) of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi and numbered as P.R.C.No.6 of 2001. During the pendency of the said case, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.799, Home (Police-F) Department, dated 22.05.2001, wherein the Government has decided to withdraw the prosecution launched against the accused and others. In the light of the said Government Order, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chintalapudi, filed a petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the prosecution launched against the respondents-accused herein. The Court below, by an order dated 10.10.2002, allowed the said petition withdrawing the case against the accused. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein field Crl.R.C.1376 of 2001 and this Court while allowing the said revision directed the Court below to dispose of the petition filed under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in ABDUL KAREEM V. STATE OF KARNATAKA[1]. Accordingly, the Court below, after reappraisal of the entire material available on record and after considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, by an order dated 05.12.2002, allowed the said petition and discharged the accused from the prosecution. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below, which has no jurisdiction, ought not to have accepted the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and withdrew the case against the respondents- accused herein without following the mandatory requirement of law. He further submits that the Court below had not adverted to all the relevant facts and material to hold that the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor was in good faith and in public interest. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. From a perusal of the material available on record, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that it is not on mere presentation of the application by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Court below accorded permission to withdraw the case against the accused. The Court below having considered the material available on record and the submissions made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor came to the conclusion that the prosecution launched against the accused need not be continued since the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor is in good faith and in public interest. The Court below further observed that the instant case was registered against the accused as a counter case to the Sessions case No.409 of 2001, wherein the husband of the petitioner was figured as an accused. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is justified and I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 26-08-2010 Gsn. [1] AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT