Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sachin Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi & Ors. –Respondents
Crl.M.C. 6489 of 2022 & CRL.M.A. 25263 of 2022
Decided on : 12-11-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 24(8) - Victim's right to participate in criminal proceedings - The Court held that the victim has a right to be heard at all stages of the proceedings, including arguments on charge, but cannot override the Public Prosecutor's role. (Paras 14, 15)
(B) Victim's Counsel - Role and limitations - The victim's counsel can assist the Public Prosecutor but cannot substitute or override their arguments, ensuring a balance between victim participation and the prosecution's primary role. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenged the trial court's order denying the right to lead oral arguments during the charge stage, asserting the victim's right to participate in the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's denial of the victim's right to make arguments was not acceptable; the victim should be allowed to present arguments while respecting the Public Prosecutor's primacy.
Issues: Whether the victim should be permitted to lead oral arguments at the charge stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the evolving jurisprudence recognizing the victim's rights to participate in criminal proceedings while maintaining the Public Prosecutor's primary role.
Result: The petition is disposed of with directions for the trial court to hear the victim's arguments.
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The Petitioner, who is the complainant and informant in FIR No.201/2022 registered at PS Tilak Nagar for offences under Sections 420/120B IPC, has approached this Court for setting aside the Order dated 05.11.2022 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, in Criminal Case No.8088/2022, rejecting the request of the Petitioner to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held that the role of the victim is only to assist the prosecution and cannot be enlarged to permit addressing of oral arguments.
2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present Petition is as to whether the Petitioner herein should have been permitted to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge or not and the impugned Order be set aside and remanded back to the Court to permit the Petitioner to lead oral arguments.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that:-
“(Payments made by Sachin Aggarwal: Total Amount:
Rs. 34,73,750/)
i. Rs. 5 Lakhs Through RTGS dated 03/09/2020
ii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 04/09/2020
iii. Rs. 2 Lakhs through RTGS dated 11/09/2020
iv. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 28/09/2020
v. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 29/09/2020
vi. Rs. 3 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020
vii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through Cheque No. 030302 from ICICI Bank
viii. Rs. 4,73,750/- through cheque no. 030304 from ICICI Bank
(Payments made by Prasanna Total Amount: Rs. 34,73,750/-)
i. Rs. 5 Lakhs Through RTGS dated 03/09/2020
ii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 05/09/2020
iii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020
iv. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020
v. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020
vi. Rs. 5 Lakhs through Cheque No. 759826 dated 21/10/2020 SBI Bank, Tis Hazari, Delhi
vii. Rs. 4,73,750/- through Cheque No. 759828 dated 21/10/2020 SBI Bank, Tis Hazari, Delhi
Apart from the above payment, Rs. 26,250/- each by both complainants were paid towards TDS.”
b. After payment of entire consideration amount, the sale deed was duly executed before the Sub Registrar. The sale deed dated 22.10.2020 was signed by Mrs. Varsha Gulati as seller and Mr. Sanjay Gulati & Mr. Devender Gulati as witnesses. The entire chain of documents were handed over to the Petitioner herein. It is stated that the Complainants handed over the possession of the property to Mr. Sudhir Arora for demolition of old structure and new construction. It is stated that sanction was obtained from the Municipal Corporation and after completion of civil work, the regularization was also done. It is stated that on 17.06.2021, accused Sarita Gulati & Pooja Gulati along with other persons, forcefully barged into the property by pushing the temporary iron doors and breaking the locks. It is the case of Sarita Gulati & Smt. Pooja Gulati that they were the owners of the property in question and they have purchased the property in the year 2005.
c. It is stated that the Petitioner gave l
Victims have a right to participate in criminal proceedings, including making oral arguments, but this right is subject to the primacy of the Public Prosecutor.
The victim has a right to be heard in criminal proceedings, but this does not equate to an automatic right to be impleaded as a party in revision petitions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'other person' in Section 401(2) of the Code includes a complainant/first informant if the order passed by the revisional court has t....
A victim has the right to be heard in bail proceedings, especially in serious offences, as mandated by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and corresponding rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
