A victim has an inherent right to participate in criminal proceedings, including the stage of framing charges, to assist the prosecution; however, this role is secondary to the Public Prosecutor, and the court must regulate such participation to ensure it supplements rather than undermines the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner, who is the complainant and informant in FIR No.201/2022 registered at PS Tilak Nagar for offences under Sections 420/120B IPC, has approached this Court for setting aside the Order dated 05.11.2022 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, in Criminal Case No.8088/2022, rejecting the request of the Petitioner to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held that the role of the victim is only to assist the prosecution and cannot be enlarged to permit addressing of oral arguments.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present Petition is as to whether the Petitioner herein should have been permitted to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge or not and the impugned Order be set aside and remanded back to the Court to permit the Petitioner to lead oral arguments.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that:-

a. On 24.07.2022, the Petitioner herein lodged an FIR bearing No.201/2022 registered under Section 420/120B IPC, PS Tilak Nagar. The gist of the complaint is that the Petitioner and one more person were approached by one Mr. Sudhir Arora S/o Desh Raj Arora, stating that a Property bearing C-21, Mukhram Park, New Delhi was available for sale. It is stated that the Petitioner was informed that the property was in a dilapidated condition and it has to be demolished and thereafter, new construction could be carried out. It is stated that the complainants were informed that Mrs. Varsha Gulati was the owner of the property and negotiations were held and meetings were attended by the accused namely; Sarita Gulati, Pooja Gulati, Devender Gulati & Sanjay Gulati. It is further stated that the sale consideration amount was arrived at Rs.70,00,000/-. It is stated that the entire sale consideration amount was paid through RTGS/cheque on following dates:-

“(Payments made by Sachin Aggarwal: Total Amount: Rs. 34,73,750/)

i. Rs. 5 Lakhs Through RTGS dated 03/09/2020

ii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 04/09/2020

iii. Rs. 2 Lakhs through RTGS dated 11/09/2020

iv. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 28/09/2020

v. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 29/09/2020

vi. Rs. 3 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020

vii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through Cheque No. 030302 from ICICI Bank

viii. Rs. 4,73,750/- through cheque no. 030304 from ICICI Bank

(Payments made by Prasanna Total Amount: Rs. 34,73,750/-)

i. Rs. 5 Lakhs Through RTGS dated 03/09/2020

ii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 05/09/2020

iii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020

iv. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020

v. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 21/10/2020

vi. Rs. 5 Lakhs through Cheque No. 759826 dated 21/10/2020 SBI Bank, Tis Hazari, Delhi

vii. Rs. 4,73,750/- through Cheque No. 759828 dated 21/10/2020 SBI Bank, Tis Hazari, Delhi

Apart from the above payment, Rs. 26,250/- each by both complainants were paid towards TDS.”

b. After payment of entire consideration amount, the sale deed was duly executed before the Sub Registrar. The sale deed dated 22.10.2020 was signed by Mrs. Varsha Gulati as seller and Mr. Sanjay Gulati & Mr. Devender Gulati as witnesses. The entire chain of documents were handed over to the Petitioner herein. It is stated that the Complainants handed over the possession of the property to Mr. Sudhir Arora for demolition of old structure and new construction. It is stated that sanction was obtained from the Municipal Corp