A third party lacks locus standi to challenge a withdrawal of a criminal complaint, as this right is exclusive to the complainant or victim.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent to withdraw the complaint filed by him has been allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for various offences pertaining to human trafficking and forgery of documents, a complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3- Ajmer. Counsel submits that the complaint, so preferred by the complainant, reveals commission of various cognizable offences but the said complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant under the pressure of the accused persons. Counsel submits that as per Section 33 of BNS S , 2023, every person who is aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under any of the Sections mentioned therein of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ ’) must give information to the nearest Magistrate or Police Officer of the commission or intention to commit such offences. Counsel submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint which reveals commission of a cognizable offence, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when the complaint was submitted by the complainant before the Trial Court, a factual report was sought by the concerned Magistrate from the Police Station, Christian Ganj and thereafter, upon perusing the same, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that as per the investigation report, the allegation levelled in the complaint was found to be incorrect and satisfied with the enquiry so conducted by the police. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant had not submitted a bona fide complaint and did not approach the Court with clean hands. Counsel submits that no evidence was produced by the complainant before the Trial Court in support of his complaint and finally, he submitted an application for withdrawal of the same. Hence, no illegality has been caused by the Court below in permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint submitted by him. Counsel submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Court below as he is not the complainant and the instant petition is not a public interest litigation. Counsel submits that a similar situation was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Choudhary , reported in 1991(3) SCC 756 wherein a third party to the criminal case was not allowed to intervene under the garb of public interest litigants. Counsel submits that the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janta Dal (Supra) was further followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs. State of Rajathan and Ors. , reported in 1996(2) WLC 433. He lastly argued that on earlier occasions also, prior to passing of the impugned order, when the complaint was filed by the complainant before the trial Court, a request was made for sending the same for registration of FIR but the said prayer of the complainant was d