Back
Private Counsel Sidelined: MP High Court Bars in Corruption Probe Sessions Trial
In a ruling that reinforces the 's dominance in serious criminal trials, the dismissed a on . A of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Pushpendra Yadav upheld a trial court's rejection of elected councillor Vijay Sharma's bid to actively assist the prosecution in a high-profile corruption case against municipal engineers and a contractor. The decision interprets , limiting private counsel to mere after .
From Potholed Roads to Courtroom Battle
The saga began on , when 21 elected councillors of the , including petitioner Vijay Sharma , penned a complaint to the District Collector. They flagged crumbling roads, phantom projects marked as complete in records, and suspected siphoning of public funds. Prompt action followed: the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's inquiry report on led to FIR No. 504/2025 at against Sub-Engineer Jitendra Parihar , Assistant Engineer Satish Nigam , and contractor Arpit Sharma of .
Charges invoked sections for cheating (318(4)), criminal breach of trust by public servants (316(5)), conspiracy (61(2)), forgery (336(3), 340(2)), and . Post-investigation , during in (Case No. SC97/2025), Sharma sought to assist via . Rejected on , prompting Criminal Revision No. 1874/2026 .
Petitioner's Push: 'I'm the People's Voice, Not an Outsider'
Sharma's counsel, , argued the trial court wrongly deemed him non-victim, ignoring his complainant role that sparked the probe. As an elected councillor, he claimed to embody Shivpuri residents' interests in this public funds misuse case. He cited Supreme Court precedents like Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 and R. Rathinam v. State (2000) 2 SCC 391 for broader participation rights.
The State, via Additional Advocate General Deependra Singh Kushwah , countered firmly: vests exclusively with the . Private involvement? Strictly subordinate.
Parsing BNSS: Reigns Supreme
The bench dissected
—
"Trial to be conducted by
"
—and
Section 338(2)
, allowing private advocates only to act
"under the directions of the
"
and submit written arguments post-evidence with court nod. No room for oral pleas or witness grilling at charge-framing stage.
Drawing from Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 474, which curbed victim counsel under old CrPC parallels (), the court rejected expanded roles. Petitioner's precedents, tied to bail cancellations, were deemed inapplicable. As news reports echoed, this aligns with BNSS intent: prosecution under state control, private input tokenized.
Courtroom Echoes: Phrases That Pack a Punch
-
"Plain reading of these provisions leave no iota of doubt that a is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting prosecution case and role of the counsel for the private person is only to the extent of submitting written argument after the evidence is closed in the case under the instructions of with permission of Court."
-
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid provisions do not permit the counsel of private person to make and . He can only file written arguments under the instructions of with the permission of the Court but only after closing of the evidence in the case."
-
"The right of a private individual to participate in the prosecution of a sessions trial is restricted and the prosecution is subject to the control of the ."
No Reversal: Status Quo Holds, Ripples for Future Probes
"We do not find any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order,"
the bench concluded, dismissing the revision. Practical fallout? Complainants like Sharma—vigilant councillors exposing graft—stay sidelined until evidence wraps, curbing overreach but potentially hobbling zealous advocacy. For
, especially corruption battles, this entrenches
primacy, echoing media notes on BNSS's evolution from CrPC. Victims and private parties must now strategize written inputs, not stage spotlights.
