The locus standi does not apply in criminal matters; only the Presiding Officer can file complaints regarding perjury related to court documents.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Review Petition No.205/2024 filed by the appellant in the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.11706/2023 titled Asma Parveen vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., whereby the appellant sought review of the order dated 04.04.2024 vide which the application of the appellant (CM APPL.14463/2024) for intervening in the underlying writ petition as informant was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the appellant that he is a former employee of Ministry of External Affairs and a whistle-blower by nature. It is stated that the respondent no.1 had filed the underlying writ petition seeking action against unauthorized construction and illegal encroachment by respondent nos.2 to 5 therein on immovable property bearing no.S-10, D-20, part of Khasra No.427/260/88, near Mumtaz Masjid, Batla House, Okhla, New Delhi-110025. The said petition was supported by three annexures including copies of the Agreement to Sell, the complaint against the respondents therein, and photographs. The appellant claims that after he came to know about the serious perjury committed in the form of fake documents of the property by showing Rs.50,00,000/- as payment, he filed an application (CM APPL. 57729/2023) as an intervener, seeking impleadment on the ground of fraud committed by respondent no.1. However, vide order dated 07.11.2023, the said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge noting that the appellant has no connection with the subject property and is not directly affected by the subject matter of the said writ petition, which stood disposed of.

3. It is further stated that the appellant filed a second application (CM APPL. 14463/2024) on the premise that the respondent no.1 had filed forged, fabricated and fake documents before the learned Single Judge with the ulterior motive to obtain a favourable order for wrongful gains, and to blackmail the builder. The said application stood dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2024 however with the liberty to the appellant to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law, including approaching the police for investigation against the respondent no.1 in case she is resorting to any illegal action of blackmailing any builder or any other party.

4. Against the said order dated 04.04.2024, the appellant had filed the review petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. It is claimed that the respondent no.1 is a part of an extortion racket and either owns or is associated with around 21 other properties. It is stated that the appellant has sufficient reasons to believe that the police personnel of the Police Station, Jamia Nagar are supporting respondent no.1 by not registering any FIR against her even on the complaint of the appellant. Therefore, he prays for a direction from this Court to initiate an inquiry into the offence of perjury committed by respondent no.1 in the underlying writ petition.

6. As per the appellant, the learned Single Judge had, vide order dated 04.04.2024, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the police authorities in case the appellant was of the view that the respondent no.1 had filed forged and fake documents alongwith the writ petition. He states that if a party encloses or annexes forged and fabricated documents alongwith its pleadings, the person competent to maintain and institute a complaint thereagainst could only be the officer before whom such documents are placed. In other words, the appellant in person submits that he would not have the requisite locus standi to institute a criminal complaint in that regard. It is on this basis that the appellant claims to have filed the review petition which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

7. Alternatively, the appellant in person also contends that the concept of locus standi in criminal juris