Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
VLS Finance Ltd – Petitioner
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi And Ors - Respondents
Crl.M.C. 8758 of 2023 & Crl.M.A. 7381 of 2024
Decided on : 24-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Bharat Chugh, Mr.Jai Allagh, Mr.Maanish M. Choudhary, Mr.Ashok Kr. Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr.Aman Usman, Mr.Vijay Agarwal, Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Mr.Jatin S.Sethi, Advs.

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Victim's participatory rights - Petition to challenge dismissal of impleadment in criminal revision petitions - Court affirmed victim's right to be heard in proceedings but ruled against automatic impleadment as a party - Ashish Mishra v. Jagjeet Singh referenced - the notion that the victim's voice should not be silenced while maintaining the prosecution's role. (Paras 45, 72)

Table of Content
1. challenge to impugned order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. right to be heard as victim (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. prosecutor's role vs victim's participation (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. boundaries of victim's rights (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. judicial discretion in revisions (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
6. regulation of victim's role (Para 51 , 52 , 53)
7. victim's right in the justice system (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
8. rights in criminal proceedings (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
9. legal interpretations of victim's role (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)
10. authority and responsibility of public prosecutors (Para 76 , 77 , 78)
11. to be heard does not mean to be a party (Para 79)
12. conclusion - victim's rights and orders (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the Order dated 26.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ASJ’) in Criminal Revision Petitions being Cr.Rev. 173/2022, 174/2022, 175/2022, 176/2022, 182/2022, 183/2022, 184/2022, 202/2022, 208/2022, 209/2022, 380/2022, 381/2022, 382/2022, and 383/2022 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Revision Petitions’), dismissing the application(s) filed by the petitioner herein seeking impleadment and to be heard in all the Revision Petitions pending before the learned ASJ.

2. The above Revision Petitions have been filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 10 herein against the Orders dated 07.03.2022 and 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Cr.No. 292282/2016 emanating from the FIR No.90/2000 registered at Police Station: Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’); Cr.No. 291854/2016 emanating from FIR No.99/2002 registered at Police Station: Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 406/409/420/424/467/469 of the IPC and in Cr.No. 291292/16 emanating from FIR No.315/2005 registered at Police Station: Naraina, South-West District, Delhi under Sections 380/411 of the IPC, all titled State v. S.P. Gupta & Ors., whereby the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the revisionists/accused persons.

Factual Matrix:

3. For the sake of convenience, the allegations in the FIR No.90/2000 are being referred herein, as the allegations in the other FIRs are almost similar, and in any case, for answering the question of law raised in the present petition, allegations in the FIR(s) are not really relevant.

4. The said FIR No.90/2000 has been registered on a complaint by the petitioner herein, alleging that around December, 1994, the accused persons approached the petitioner company with the proposal to finance a hotel project likely to be set up around Connaught Place, New Delhi. It is alleged that the accused represented to the petitioner company that they would invest Rs.21 crores towards equity share capital in the respondent no.2 company in case the petitioner company was ready to finance the said project upto the tune of Rs. 7 crores and pick-up 25 percent equity participation in the respondent no.2 company. It is alleged that the accused represented to the complainant that this investment would entitle the project to seek a loan from financial institutions. It is alleged that the accused persons dishonestly deceived the petitioner company into believing that they could garner the abovesaid amount and assured the petitioner that their money was secure since nearly three-fourth of the equity would be infused by the accused pers