Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.
Shanti Dhariwal S/o Late Shri Rikhabh Chand Dhariwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5353 of 2022, S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 461 of 2025, S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 653 of 2025, S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113 of 2022, S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 114 of 2022, S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 115 of 2022, S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 131 of 2022, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1717 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Savita Nathawat Advocate. Mr. Saransh Saini Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kumar Advocate. Mr. S.S. Hora Advocate with Mr. Sahajveer Baweja Advocate. Mr. Pankaj Gupta Advocate with Mr. Naman Yadav Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG assisted by Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Mr. Shashank Khurana Advocate, Mr. Saubhagya Sundriyal Advocate Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh Advocate with Mr. Anupam Bhargava Advocate & Ms. Sakshi Agrawal Advocate. Dr. Abhinav Sharma, Spl. PP assisted by Mr. Rahul Sharma Advocate & Mr. Akshaya Verma Advocate Mr. Anurag Sharma, Spl. PP assisted by Ms. Shreya Hatila Advocate.

The court established that individuals concerned with ensuring justice may intervene in criminal proceedings, even if not direct victims or informants, emphasizing public interest in prosecutions against corruption.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 321 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Allegations of corruption and abuse of official position - Proposed applicant permitted to intervene as a party to ensure a fair trial in corruption cases, despite contentions of accused regarding his bona fides - The public interest in cases of societal corruption requires active engagement from citizens. (Paras 3, 23)

(B) Locus Standi - It was established that individuals may have locus to oppose withdrawal of prosecutions even if they are not the original complainants or victims, emphasizing a victim-centric approach in criminal trials. (Paras 10-12, 22)

Facts of the case:
Multiple applications seeking intervention were filed by a public-spirited individual related to ongoing criminal proceedings concerning allegations of corruption against various officials. The original informant’s death raised questions about continuance of the prosecution and intervention by concerned parties.

Findings of Court:
The Court recognized the importance of the proposed applicant's involvement in ensuring fairness in trials relating to allegations against public officials, affirming the intervention to uphold public interest.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the proposed applicant had locus standi to intervene in the criminal proceedings, particularly against the backdrop of the State's shifting stance on prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the right to oppose prosecution withdrawal should not be restricted to victims or informants, but extended to individuals concerned with ensuring the integrity of the judicial process, thereby reinforcing the importance of societal participation in serious corruption matters. (Paras 9, 22)

Result: Applications for impleadment/intervention allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court has emphasized that individuals concerned with ensuring justice, even if not direct victims or informants, may intervene in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving societal interests such as corruption. This underscores the importance of societal participation in ensuring fair trials (!) (!) .
The court recognized the significance of a private individual’s locus standi to oppose the withdrawal of prosecutions, even if they are not the original complainant or victim. The focus is on the interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and societal interest in combating corruption (!) (!) .
The legal framework permits intervention by concerned citizens to uphold public interest, particularly in cases involving high-level officials or serious allegations, provided their interest is bona fide and connected to the case’s integrity (!) (!) .
The court clarified that locus standi is a flexible concept, and a person with a genuine interest in the proceedings, especially in cases of public importance, may be allowed to intervene, even if they are not directly involved as complainants or victims (!) (!) .
The decision also highlighted that intervention should not be motivated by personal vendetta or political motives, and the court will scrutinize the bona fide nature of such intervention (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that criminal proceedings are primarily for societal interest, and any citizen with a genuine concern for justice and public morality has a right to participate or oppose proceedings, including the withdrawal of prosecutions (!) (!) .
The court permitted the intervention of the proposed applicant, considering his interest in ensuring a fair investigation and trial in cases involving corruption, despite opposition based on his alleged personal motives or lack of direct connection (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the State’s decision to withdraw or not press certain applications does not preclude judicial review of the orders passed, and each case’s merits will be considered independently (!) (!) .
All related cases are to be listed for hearing on a specified date to ensure expedited proceedings, reflecting the importance of timely justice in such matters (!) (!) .
The registry is instructed to place a copy of the order on record of each connected petition, ensuring transparency and proper documentation (!) .

These points collectively illustrate the court’s approach to intervention, locus standi, and public interest in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving corruption and public officials.

ORDER :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.

1. This order shall govern disposal of applications seeking impleadment/intervention filed by Mr. Ashok Pathak in two sets of petitions, one set of petitions is filed by the accused seeking quashment of criminal proceedings and another set of revision petitions has been filed seeking to challenge the orders passed by the court below rejecting the application for withdrawal of prosecution filed under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as it then existed) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’].

This order shall also govern disposal of application for withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022 filed by the State in the matter to challenge the order passed by the court below rejecting application seeking withdrawal of prosecution filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. (as it then existed).

2. Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as it then existed) are those which have been filed by the accused in the pending criminal cases.

3. Learned counsel for the proposed applicant argued that Ramsharan Singh, original informant lodged FIR, on which preliminary enquiry was conducted and a criminal case under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) was registered against the accused. The offences involved allegation of forgery and abuse of official position. Such cases, where the allegation is of wide range corruption by abuse and misuse of official position by the accused persons, have to be distinguished from ordinary offences and all citizens, including proposed applicant, are victims. Such offences are primarily against the society at large. In addition to State being the prosecutor, public spirited individuals such as the present applicant are entitled as of law and public policy to seek impledment and oppose prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings as also the prayer for withdrawal of prosecution. The original informant has died. The proposed applicant was closely associated with the original informant. The State moved applications seeking withdrawal of prosecution which though have been rejected, but the orders have been challenged not only by the State, but by the accused also. Therefore, in these circumstances, even though, now the State has decided not to pursue its application seeking withdrawal of prosecution, yet taking into consideration that the State has been changing its stand off and on, proposed applicant may be allowed to be impleaded as party. The present applicant is interested in ensuring fair trial. Original informant, Ramsharan Singh had also filed petition seeking transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During pendency of the petition, Ramsharan Singh died and his son moved application seeking withdrawal of the petition. At that stage, present applicant sought impleadment in that petition, which was later on dismissed due to death of writ petitioner Ramsharan Singh, the deceased informant. However, liberty was granted to the proposed applicant to pursue his legal remedy. Proposed applicant has also moved an application for filing documents and participation in the proceedings before the trial court. The applicant is an activist, social worker and public spirited citizen of good moral and sufficient understanding for many decades. He has been assisting voiceless victims of Government’s arbitrary action in the State of Rajasthan, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or political affiliation. He has acted as mouthpiece for common citizens by filing public interest litigations and many complaints details of which have been given in the application which show that he is not coming for the first time in the present case, but has remained actively engaged in various matters. He has also remained engaged in pursuing social and legal actions against corrupt practices. He is not a v