The complainant has the right to be heard in proceedings that could affect the fate of the complaint, and must be notified and given the opportunity to contest any claim seeking termination of the criminal process.

N.Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. The present Cril. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 3(4)12 Chingai P.S. registered under Sections 379/403/409/420/34 IPC dated 14.4.2012.

The issue of immediate concern in this petition is whether the present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR case without impleading the complainant is maintainable or not.

2. It has been stated that petitioner No. 1 is the Headman of Chingai village in the Ukhrul District and the petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 are the villagers of the said village.

According to the petitioners, on the basis of certain complaint filed by one Shri R.Yaolei of the same village against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 alleging misappropriation of funds relating to implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (in short MGNREGS) in Chingai village, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ukhrul, the learned Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to the Officer-in-charge, Chingai police station for investigation. Thereupon an FIR being No. 3(4)12 Chingai Police Station under Sections 379/403/409/420/34 IPC dated 14.04.2012 was registered against the petitioners No. 1 and 2. The two petitioners surrendered before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ukhrul on 5.5.2012 in connection with the said FIR for grant of bail which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 5.5.2012. The petitioners contended as regards the allegation of misappropriation of funds, that there is an alternative forum of Ombudsman available under the NREG Act. Hence, the act of the complainant to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate bypassing the alternative remedy available is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this Cril. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said FIR.

3. The State respondents have filed an affidavit opposing the petition. It has been stated that the aforesaid FIR case was later kept in abeyance by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ukhrul on the ground that the complainant had not approached the alternative forum of Ombudsman provided under the NREG Act. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the district Ombudsman by the same complainant, which found that the funds had been misappropriated by the two petitioners no. 1 and 2 and accordingly, registered two cases. It seems that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ukhrul later discharged the accused persons by an order dated 7.6.2012, against which a revision was preferred before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East by filing Cril. Revision Case No. 11 of 2012 which was allowed, the result being that the FIR No. 3(4)12 Chingai P.S. under Sections 379/403/409/420/34 IPC dated 14.4.2012 stood revived. According to the respondents, there is no bar in proceeding with two parrel proceedings as the matter relates to serious charge of misappropriation of large public fund and there is no merit in the petition.

4. When this matter was taken up for hearing, it was noted by this Court that the complainant, Shri R.Yaolei who had filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ukhrul has not been impleaded as a respondent and doubted the maintainability of the petition. When it was suggested to the petitioners that they would be at liberty to implead him as a respondent in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is not required under law and declined to implead the complainant as a respondent unless so directed by the Court. Accordingly, the issue of maintainability of this criminal petition has come up for consideration.

Accordingly, the Court would now proceed to deal with the issue of maintainability of this petition for quashing an FIR without impleading the complainant.

5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the Court is called upon to exerc