( 1 ) BY this application, the complainant seeks permission to be impleaded as party/respondent in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that since a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order taking cognizance of the case, it would be complainant s right to be heard because he is the affected party, who, in the first instance, filed the complaint. Pe draws my attention to Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another (1985) 2 SCC 537, where in the Supreme Court has held that:

"moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the First Information Report lodged by him is clearly recognized by the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 154, sub-section (2) of Section 157 and sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the First Information Report lodged by him. There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take congnizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to pursuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly, of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf of the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of effecting serve of the notice on the informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the First Information Report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason-why it should be difficult to service notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate. "

( 2 ) ON that basis, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he would have right to be impleaded as party and be heard in the petition seeking quashing of the order to the Magistrate taking cognizance. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thai the judgment cited above is not law for the proposition sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the stage at which the complainant can be heard is only when congnizance has not been taken by the Magistrate. The moment cognizance is taken, then State steps into the picture and the complainant has no right to be heard thereafter. He submits that even in a case where cognizance is taken and person is discharged, the complainant cannot be heard to say that the accused ought not to be discharged. Similar is the case where the accused is to be acquitted, the complainant cannot be heard to say that the accused ought not to be acquitted. The function o