IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2277 of 2008 State of Rajasthan VERSUS Vikram Singh son of Shri Panna Lal. Date of Order :::: 16/01/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Ms. Manju Dave, Public Prosecutor for the State. By the Court : This miscellaneous petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been moved on behalf of the State against the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar in Criminal Revision Petition No.59/2008, whereby the revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 18.03.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Alwar was confirmed, by which the learned Lower Court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. moved for withdrawal of the pending cases. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Facts, in brief, of the case are that during Legislative Assembly Election, 1998 in Village Bhugore at Centre No.32 the accused-respondent, along with other persons forcibly entered into the polling booth and gave beating to the persons, who were on duty and marked cross on ballot papers. An F.I.R. was lodged against accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 332, 353, 452, 171 of the Indian Penal Code and 131, 133, 135 and 135 (A) (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Later-on, the State moved an application on the ground that a few of the witnesses have not identified the accused and the case is of a weak nature and will ultimately result in acquittal. The learned Lower Court after going through the entire record of the case observed that all the witnesses have rightly identified the accused and looking to the nature and gravity of the case as well as conduct of the accused, it is not a fit case for withdrawal of the pending cases. It is a settled preposition of law that the Public Prosecutor for the State while moving an application for withdrawal should apply his mind independently. Though, an application for withdrawal is not available on the record, but the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has filed this withdrawal application on the basis of circular issued by the Central as well as State Government and it seems that he has not applied his mind independently on the issued circular and the ground mentioned. As per the order passed by the Court below, the ground that the witnesses have not identified the accused, is not true because in the order of the learned Lower Court dated 02.06.2003, it is specifically mentioned that the witnesses have identified the accused correctly. Both the orders of the learned Lower Courts are as per the settled provisions of law and neither any illegality or irregularities has been committed in the said orders. No interference is called for in the matter, therefore, the petition moved on behalf of the State deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/