This criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila)Judge, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.92 of 2017 in Special S.C.No.98 of 2016 by order dated 28.3.2017.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and father of the deceased. The deceased is the wife of A1 and daughter-in-law of A2 and A3. On 29.3.2011, the deceased committed suicide at the matrimonial house and according to the prosecution, the said suicide was taken place due to the dowry demand as well as cruelty and harassment given by the accused to the said deceased. Therefore, after investigation, final report and charge sheet had been filed by the respondent police on 20.01.2014 before the Court below.

3. It is the plea of the petitioner before the trial Court as he had filed a permission petition under Section 301 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') seeking the permission of the Court to render assistance to the prosecution in conducting the trial. The said petition was objected to by the prosecution and after considering both sides plea as well as arguments, the learned Judge by the impugned order dated 28.3.2017 has rejected the said request made by the petitioner to assist the prosecution.

4. In the said order, the learned Judge after having considered the scope of the said plea made by the petitioner to assist the prosecution in the teeth of the relevant provisions of the Code, though has rejected the said plea of the petitioner, however, has permitted the petitioner to file the written arguments on completion of evidence of both sides. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the learned Judge, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

5. Mr. S. Sudarshan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that all the accused persons are influential persons in the society and that is the reason why even at the time of investigation, it was handed over to the CBCID police. They infact investigated the case impartially and had laid charge sheet against the three accused, who are, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, influential persons. Therefore, on that pretext, it seems that it was the apprehension of the petitioner that unless an effective assistance is provided to the prosecution to conduct the trial, there may be a chance of slip over of the case from the clutches of the law and thereby, the accused may not be punished at the end of the trial. Probably, for these reasons, the petitioner had approached the trial Court with a petition under Section 301 of the Code.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2001 (3) SCC 462 in the matter of J.K. International Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others.

7. The learned counsel has relied upon the following passages of the said Judgment which are extracted hereunder :

9. The scheme envisaged in the Code of Criminal procedure (for short the Code) indicates that a person who is aggrieved by the offence committed, is not altogether wiped out from the scenario of the trial merely because the investigation was taken over by the police and the charge sheet was laid by them. Even the fact that the court had taken cognizance of the offence is not sufficient to debar him from reaching the court for ventilating his grievance. Even in the sessions court, where the Public Prosecutor is the only authority empowered to conduct the prosecution as per Section 225 of the Code, a private person who is aggrieved by the offence involved in the case is not altogether debarred from participating in the trial. This can be discerned from Section 301(2) of the Code which reads thus :

“301. (2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under th