VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Informant-complainant is also an aggrieved party, besides State, in a proceeding initiated by accused for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the Court should not deny him right to be heard and the Court has power to permit him to be heard.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 406 and 120-B-Criminal proceedings initiated by appellant as lodger of FIR against respondents for cheating and criminal breach of trust-Police filing charge sheet-Accused approached High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings without impleading Complainant/Appellant-Appellant moved an application to be impleaded as party-High Court rejected his application as he has no right to be heard except the State and the Court has no power to permit him to be heard-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No)-Appeal allowed-Case law discussed-Section 307(2) and 302 Cr.P.C. relied on referring Sections 172(2)(1) and 225.
       Held : (distinguished observations in Thakur Ram s case) (AIR 1966 SC 911). But the situation here is different, as the accused approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant. It may not be that the complainant should have been made a party by the accused himself in the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings, as the accused has no such obligation when the case was charge-sheeted by the police. It is predominantly the concern of the State to continue the prosecution. But when the complainant wishes to be heard when the criminal proceedings are sought to be quashed, it would be a negation of justice to him if he is foreclosed from being heard even after he makes a request to the court in that behalf. What is the advantage of the court in telling him that he would not be heard at all even at the risk of the criminal proceedings initiated by him being quashed. It is no solace to him to be told that if the criminal proceedings are quashed he may have the right to challenge it before the higher forums. (Para 7)
       Held : (Relying on observations in Bhagwant Singh s case (1985(2) SCC 537). In the above view of the matter learned single judge has done wrong to the appellant when he closed the door of the High Court before him by saying that the High Court is going to consider whether the criminal proceedings initiated at his behest should be quashed completely and that the complainant would not be heard at all even if he wants to be heard. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The petition filed by the respondents for quashing the criminal proceedings can now be disposed of by the High Court after affording a reasonable opportunity to this appellant also to be heard in the matter. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. The grievance of the appellant is simple and apparently innocuous that he too may be heard by the court. But the High Court rolled down the shutters before him saying he has no right to be heard and the court has no power to permit him to be heard. As his grievance was compounded by such denial he has filed this appeal by special leave.

3. A person accused of certain offences moved the High Court of Delhi for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in a magistrate s court. Appellant informed the High Court that the criminal proceedings were initiated at his behest and hence he too may be heard before the criminal proceedings are to be quashed. A learned single judge of the High Court of Delhi, while foreclosing the appellant from doing so, observed that the Court is "of the considered opinion that the right of the complainant to be heard ceases once cognizance is taken and he cannot thereafter continue to participate in the proceedings as if he were the aggrieved party who must have his say in proceedings."

4. The background is the following. Appellant filed a complaint before the police alleging that respondents 2 & 3 committed offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating. As he felt that no action was taken by the police on the complaint he filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to register FIR. However, before the writ petition was disposed of, the police informed the court that the FIR was already registered on the complaint filed by the appellant. Respondents then moved the High Court in a writ petition for quashing the FIR, and the appellant was also allowed to be impleaded in that writ petition. For some reasons the said writ petition was not followed up by the respondents and it was subsequently withdrawn.

5. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against respondents for offences under Section 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC and the court issued process to the respondents requiring them to appear before the Court on 31.5.2000. At that stage respondents filed the present petition before the High Court praying for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the magistrate court pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet filed by the police. In the writ petition the appellant was not made a party and therefore a petition was filed in the High Court for impleading the appellant as a party. The main plank of the appellant before the High Court was the decision of this court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police1. The learned single judge of the High Court of Delhi felt that the observations made by this Court in an earlier decision (Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar2) are more appropriate to the fact situation and basing on those observations learned single judge rejected the petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.

6. The observations of this court in Thakur Ram which persuaded the learned single judge to shut the door before the appellant are the following:

"In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt the terms of Section 435 (old Cr. P.C.) are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, has caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book...."

That was a case in which the Public Prosecutor filed an application before a magistrate in a pending trial for amending the charge by incorporating two more offences which are exclusively triable by the court of sessions and prayed for the case to be committed by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 359

VERY IMPORTANT POINTInformant-complainant is also an aggrieved party, besides State, in a proceeding initiated by accused for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the Court should not deny him right to be heard and the Court has power to permit him to be heard.

Cases Referred (2)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Informant-complainant is also an aggrieved party, besides State, in a proceeding initiated by accused for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the Court should not deny him right to be heard and the Court has power to permit him to be heard.