Professor Narendra Singh Punia v. Suresh Kumar Khati & State of M.P.

permitted Shri Ramandeep Singh to assist the prosecutor in view of the provisions under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. Ramandeep Singh never appeared for prosecuting the case. Thus, the petitioner thought it proper to conduct the prosecution and therefore he filed and application under Sections 301 and 302 of Cr.P.C. to permit him to prosecute the respondent. At one stage, the Court permitted the petitioner also to assist the prosecution, but probably looking to his conduct during the course of trial, the Court vide order dated November 30, 2011 held that the petitioner had no locus standi to prosecute the respondent. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Magistrate are reproduced hereunder:- Jh ujsUnz iwf.kZ;k }kjk vius tokc ds leFkZu esa ,d U;k; n`"Vkar ts-ds- baVjus'kuy fo:) ,u-lh-Vh fnYyh jkT; ,oa vU; ¼2001½ 3 SCC 462 is'k fd;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls Qfj; knh dks vfHk;kstu ds lapkyu dh vuqefr iznku dh tk ldrh ,oa vU; dksbZ O;fDr tks mlesa fgr j[krk gks U;k;ky; ls vuqefr izkIr dj vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu dj ldrk gS A ijarq mDr U;k; n`"Vkar ds rF; bl izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs D;ksafd Jh ujsUnz flag iwf.kZ;k }kjk vfHk;kstu dks lapkfyr djus dh vuqefr iznku ugha dh xbZ gSS ,oa jeunhi dks Hkh vfHk;kstu dh lgk; rk djus dh vuqefr iznku dh xbZ gSA vr% vkjksih dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

The petitioner made submissions that in the present case, there was no public prosecutor attached to the Court concerned and infact the Public Prosecutor was not taking any steps for prosecuting the respondent. 4 M.Cr.C.9963/2011

To appreciate the contention of the petitioner, a report was called from the Police. The police has denied the suggestions of the petitioner. In fact an affidavit has been filed of the prosecutor which shows that he is continuing to prosecute on each and every date of hearing. Despite that the petitioner submitted that the public prosecutor did not take any requisite steps and he is not assisting the case of the State in prosecuting the respondent properly.

The issue as to what extent the private person who is aggrieved by a crime can assist the prosecution or conduct the prosecution. This issue has been dealt with by the Rajasthan High Court at length in a judgment delivered in the case of Bhopal Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cri.L.J.912. While dealing with the issue, the Court taking note of the submissions made by the respondent in that case who was private party and contented that

in a spoil system, the Public Prosecutors are mostly incompetent as they are appointed by the Government on party line. It is also submitted that mostly, the public prosecutors do not function with requisite detachment and they are influenced by the politicians and police officers and they are also susceptible to misuse and corruption. It is also submitted that any person, who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused persons has inherent right to prosecute such accused persons through a competent lawyer of his choice. It is, thus, submitted that a right of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to prosecute the accused at his hand, when a person has suffered any loss or injury. Sections 225, 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which completely 5 M.Cr.C.9963/2011 deprives a complainant to prosecute the accused, at whose hand he has suffered any loss or injury, are unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Taking note of the provisions contained in Section 24 of Cr.P.C., which deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutor and provisions contained under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. as also making a distinction between the rights of a private person in Civil case and in criminal proceedings, the learned Judge made the following observations:- “8. Thus, in all prosecutions, the State is the prosecutor and a proceeding is always treated as proceeding between the State and he accused. The anxiety of the State is to secure peace and security and has a right to The complainant has no prosecute. independent right to have guilty person punished. It is felt necessary in the larger public interest to save the people from prosecution by a private party. Once the offence is committed, it is not against an individual but is against the entire Society. Thus, of the outcome of a trial, it is not only the complainant, who is interested but it is the public at large, who is concerned.

The aforesaid judgment squarely lays down the public policy as also law on the subject and the limited right given by the legislature to private person, who in the present case, may also include the petitioner being one of the aggrieved person. However, such right will have to be restricted to provisions contained under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. i.e. only to assist the prosecution and at the most to file written submissions if the evidence is collected in the trial. To that extent, even though permission was granted to the complainant, the son of the petitioner, but as the petitioner feels that his son is not in a position to assist the prosecution and wish for permitting him to be substituted in place of his son for the purpose of assisting the prosecutor, he can move an application after obtaining attorney from the son to assist the prosecution. If such an application is moved, the trial Court would consider the same, but in the light of the observations made above.

Parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 17.04.2012 on which date the trial Court will proceed in the matter in accordance with law and will try to expedite the prosecution. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned alongwith record. C.C.as per rules. RJ/ ( M.C.Garg) JUDGE