JUDGMENT :

(Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.) :—

The Question & Factual Matrix

1. Does the victim's right to be heard include the obligation to be impleaded as a party-respondent in criminal proceedings? That is the question sought to be addressed by this judgment.

2. To understand in what context the question arises, a brief background of the matter would be necessary.

3. The present petition was filed under section 439 read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 320/2022 registered under section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) at P.S. : Jaitpur.

4. On the first date of hearing on 05.12.2022, while issuing notice on the petition, it was observed that the victim in the subject FIR had been made party-respondent in the matter, though her name and particulars had been anonymized or redacted. This, learned counsel for the petitioner said, was done on the specific directions of the Registry of this court. A report in that regard was called from the Registrar (Filing). Vide report dated 05.01.2023, the Registrar cited section 439(1A) Cr. P.C. and Practice Directions dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Delhi High Court, to say that the petitioner was directed to implead the victim as a party-respondent in the present matter in purported compliance and towards implementation of the said statutory provision and the practice directions issued by this court. In addition, the report also said that “… previously verbal directions were given by Hon'ble Court that the victim/complainant be arrayed in the Memo of Parties as respondent after hiding the identity of the victim…”. Reference was also made to an order made by a Coordinate Bench where the appellant therein was granted permission to implead the complainant as party-respondent. The report also said that the same practice was being followed in all matters being filed in this court relating to victims of sexual offences.

Statutory Backdrop

5. So, how has our justice dispensation system perceived the position of a victim in relation to prosecution of a criminal offence thus far?

6. “The travails and tribulations of victims of crime begin with the trauma of the crime itself …”. It was with these words that in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 cf. paras 2, 9, 74, 75, the Supreme Court highlighted the hurdles that victims face in accessing the criminal justice system after suffering violence visited upon them. The Supreme Court went-on to observe that victims can no longer be sidelined; and held that victims have a right to file an appeal against acquittal of an accused without having to seek leave from the court, [Also cf. Proviso to section 372 Cr. P.C.].

7. Beginning from the conventional position, where only the State had the prerogative to prosecute the offender, based on the notion that a criminal offence was a crime against the people-at-large, to the view taken in Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra), the Supreme Court has now expanded the role of a victim from one that was penumbral to one that is central to criminal proceedings.

8. In its recent verdict in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321 at paras 22, 23 and 24.2, the Supreme Court has accorded specific recognition to the rights of a victim, observing that victims “… cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar …”; that victims have “… a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence …; (they have) unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision …”; and that the mere presence of the State “… does not tantamount to according a hearing to a “victim” of the crime”. (emphasis supplied)

9. It is therefore clear, that victims of crime can no lo