Advocates Bharat Chugh, Jai Allagh, Maanish M Choudhary, and Ashok Kr Sharma represented the petitioner (complainant).
Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman represented the State.
Advocates Vijay Agarwal, Gurpreet Singh, and Jatin S.Sethi represented other respondents.
The Court was hearing a plea challenging a Sessions Court’s refusal to make the complainant a formal party in revision petitions moved by the accused in a criminal case against a trial court’s order on charges.
The Delhi High Court recently said that a complainant’s right to be heard in a revision petition challenging the framing of charges in a criminal case does not mean that they also have the right of impleadment in such a plea [VLS Finance Ltd vs State NCT of Delhi and Others]. Emphasizing a balance between the State’s responsibility to conduct a criminal prosecution, and the right of the victim to seek justice, Justice Navin Chawla said that a court, while extending the right to be heard to the complainant, also has to ensure that such proceedings do not turn into a battle.
“Hearing a party does not necessarily involve the impleadment of such a party .. the right of the victim to participate in the trial and proceedings emanating therefrom, though recognized and is of importance, however, is still not of position where the victim replaces the Public Prosecutor. The right would remain subordinate to that of the Public Prosecutor and, therefore, where the victim applies for a hearing in a Revision Petition, while the victim must be heard, there is no mandate in law to implead the victim as a party,” the Court said.
The Court made the observation while hearing a petition challenging a Sessions Court’s decision to refuse the impleadment of a complainant in revision petitions moved by the accused in a criminal case against the trial court’s order on charges. While considering the question of whether the victim has a right to be impleaded in such revision petitions, the Court looked at various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the law laid down by courts including the Supreme Court in several judgments.
The Court also delved into the role of public prosecutors in the criminal justice system and stressed that they are to act “as an Officer of the Court and not merely as the mouthpiece of the investigating agency." “The learned Public Prosecutor represents the interests of the society at large and in the dispensation of such function, he plays a pivotal role as a central figure to guide the Court on a proper course of action in the given facts of a particular case to ensure that the justice is done," the Court added.
However, the Single Judge also remarked that the Supreme Court has highlighted that due to a work overload, Public Prosecutors may sometimes overlook important aspects of a case and in such a scenario, assistance from the complainant may play a crucial role.
“In fact, in the Cr.P.C. itself, amendments have been made to give a locus to the complainant/ victim to participate at different stages of the criminal proceedings,” the Court added.
Thus, the Court concluded that the law has evolved enough to a stage where the right of the victim to be heard in a criminal proceeding cannot be denied. If the victim wishes to participate in the criminal proceedings and to be heard, the doors of the court for a hearing cannot be shut to the victim, it remarked. “A victim has an equivalent right to see that justice is done and the accused is brought to book and to face his conviction and sentence," the Court said.
However, it disagreed with the argument that affording a right of a fair and effective hearing to the victim would include and encompass within itself a right to be impleaded in a revision petition filed by the accused. Consequently, in the present case, the Court upheld the Sessions Court order to not allow the impleadment of the complainant in the revision petitions moved by the accused. It, however, directed that a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner (complainant).
“The petitioner, being the alleged victim, has an independent right to be heard in the Revision Petitions pending adjudication before the learned ASJ, especially as they seek the closure/culmination of the criminal proceedings against the accused/revisionist(s),” the Court ruled.