The right to be heard does not equate to the right to be impleaded as a party in criminal revision proceedings.

O R D E R

% 12.09.2025 CRL.M.A. 27401/2025, CRL.M.A. 27402/2025, CRL.M.A. 27403/2025 CRL.M.A. 27404/2025EXEMPTION Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 6506/2025

1. This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India , seeking to set aside the order dated 18.08.2025 and 01.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Court in Revision Petition No. 1916/2024. Petitioner is also seeking directions to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner’s I.A. No. 3/2025 in the said Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Petitioner was granted regular bail in case FIR No. 96/2018, PS EOW, under Section 420/406/34 IPC, subject to certain conditions including the condition that petitioner shall seek the court’s permission before travelling abroad.

3. Petitioner filed an application before the learned CMM on 01.05.2024, seeking permission to travel to Dubai for visiting her daughter, who is suffering from severe Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (“PCOS”). However, the application came to be dismissed by learned CMM vide order dated 04.05.2024. Petitioner preferred the revision petition, which has been pending for more an year on the issue of maintainability.

4. Petitioner filed an urgent hearing application I.A. No. 3/2025 in Revision Petition on 12.08.2025 for the grant of permission, but the learned Sessions court vide impugned orders, directed the petitioner to implead the complainants in FIR No. 96/2018 before disposing of the said application.

5. It is argued that complainants have no un-brindled legal right of being impleaded before a Revisional Court in the light of express legal bar under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr. PC, as held in Saleem Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2023) SCC Online Delhi 2190, in which, it has been observed in Para No. 30 that the right to be represented and be heard is distinct of the obligation to be a party to criminal proceedings.

6. Vide impugned orders dated 18.08.2025 and 01.09.2025, the learned Sessions Court directed the petitioner to take steps to implead all the complainants. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of VLS Finance Ltd. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2024 SCC Online Del 3908, while referring to the decision in the case of Saleem (supra), held as under:-

“71. Keeping in view the above, it is to be considered whether a right to be heard given to a victim/complainant in a State case can be uplifted to a right to be impleaded in a criminal revision, if the complainant/victim applies for the same. In my opinion, the answer has to be in the negative.”

7. No doubt, complainants have a right to be heard on the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of permission to travel abroad, but this right cannot be extended to a right to be impleaded in the revision petition.

8. That being so, the impugned orders dated 18.08.2025 & 01.09.2025, directing the petitioner to implead all the complainants, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside with direction to dispose of the application of the petitioner in most expeditious manner. However, the court would be at liberty to hear the complainants before passing any order on the application of the petitioner for permission to travel abroad.

9. Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.