[CASE NUMBER] M/s [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY]) 2.M/s [ENTITY] 22.04.2016 Pre: Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Order not ready. Put up for order on 25.04.2016. ([ENTITY]) ASJ-03/PHC/NDD 22.04.206 25.04.2016 Pre: Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the respondent. File perused, vide separate detailed order placed along side in the file, since the investigation is yet to be concluded therefore, I do not find any substance against the observations of ld. MM, at this stage. At the most an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] can be filed by the appellants in the designated court as observed in "[PRECEDENT]". Apart from this, the matter is at the stage of investigation, therefore, the application filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] has rightly been dismissed by the ld. Trial court vide impugned order dated 04.04.2016 as the appeal petition is not maintainable on account of its maintainability and locus standi at this stage. Accordingly, appeal petition stands disposed of. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Appeal petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room. ([ENTITY]) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI 1 IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER] IN THE MATTER OF : M/s [ENTITY] Through its Authorized Representative [Mr. [ENTITY]] FC 19, Sector 16- A NOIDA, UP. Appellant Versus [ENTITY]) 2.M/s [ENTITY], Through its Director Mr. [ENTITY], Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066. Respondents 25.04.2016 ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of appeal petition filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] r/w 340 (2) [ACT] against the orders dated 04.04.2016 passed by ld. [CASE NUMBER], New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned order) whereby ld. trial court dismissed the application of the appellant filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] on the grounds that proposed accused persons do not have any 'locus standi' at this stage.
2. Briefly facts of the case are that a complaint case no.26/1C/15 titled as "[ENTITY] v. Subhash Chandra & Ors." u/[SECTION] [ACT] has been filed by the respondent no.2 [ENTITY] for the offences u/[SECTION] [SECTION] 503 [ACT] against the appellant. During the course of trial, ld. Counsel for the appellant [proposed accused persons] intervened in the matter and filed applications u/[SECTION] [ACT] [ACT]. They asserted before the ld. Trial court that they have the 'locus standi' to appear before the trial court to make submissions. On the other hand, the said complaint case is at the stage of recording of complainant[respondent no.2] evidence. Therefore, ld. Trial Court after having heard arguments of ld. Counsel for the appellant passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 and dismissed the application filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] observing that:-
" As per [SECTION] of [ACT], Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence has to proceed with the examination of the complainant and the witnesses produced on his behalf. No where in the [SECTION] of the [ACT] there exist any intermediary stage for appearance by the proposed accused persons to make intervention in the case proceedings. From the entire scheme of [SECTION] of [ACT] it is clear that accused persons does not come into picture at all till the process is issued. Also Hon'ble Apex Court held in "[PRECEDENT] that:
"it is clear from the entire scheme of [SECTION] of the [ACT] that accused persons does not come into picture at all till the process is issued. This does not mean that he has precluded from being present when an inquiry is held by Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through ld. Counsel or agent with view to be informed of what is going on but since the very question for consideration have whether he should be called upon to have accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceedings nor has a Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. It would follow from this, therefore, that it would be open to Magistrate to put any questions to witnesses at the instance of a person named as accused but against whom process has not been issued; nor can he examine any witness at the instance of such a person. Of course, the Magistrate himself is free to put such questions to the witness produced before him by complainant as he may think proper in the interest of justice but beyond that he can go".
It is clear from laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment that accused persons have no 'locus standi' to appear before the Court, make appearance or file applications whatsoever and claim any right of hearing before they are summoned. This court cannot devise any procedure inconsistent to statutory law and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and confer 'locus standi', on the proposed accused persons by allowing them to participate in the proceedings at post cognizance stage without being summoned for any offence. This court has to meticulously adhere to the codified law and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for that purpose. Law has been appropriately codified by the legislature under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as to how the court should proceed and after careful perusal of the legal provisions contained in the [SECTION] of the [ACT] this court reached to the conclusion that proposed accused persons does not have any 'locus standi' in this case at this stage." Feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders dated 04.04.2016, ld. Counsel for the appellants filed the appeal petitions.
3. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel Sh. [ENTITY] along with AR for appellant submitted that he adopts the arguments as argued by him in the [CASE NUMBER] on 07.04.2016, as matter is more or less similar to the preceding appeals. It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that an application under [SECTION] [ACT] was dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.04.2016. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the the citation "Manohar Lal Vs. Vinesh Anand", [SECTION]1 Cri. L. J. 2044, in this case it has been observed that:-
"Before however, embarking on a discussion on the subject issue, a look at the provisions would be best suited at this juncture: The relevant provisions being [SECTION] and 195 sub-section (1)
(b) and sub-Section (3) of the [ACT]. The provisions read thus: 340: Procedure in cases mentioned in [SECTION] -
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of [SECTION], which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(Corresponding Law: [SECTION] of Act V of 1898) (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of [SECTION].
(Corresponding Law : S.476A of Act V of 1898) (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding Officer of the Court, (Correspondent Law: [SECTION]Proviso of Act V of 1898)
4) In this section, Court has the same meaning as in [SECTION]. [SECTION]: Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No court shall take cognizance-
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the [ACT], namely, [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in [SECTION], or punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] or [SECTION] of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. [SECTION] (3):
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term Court means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
Before adverting to the matter in issue and the rival contentions advanced one redeeming feature ought to be noticed here pertain to Criminal jurisprudence: To pursue an offender in the event of commission of an offence, is to sub-serve a social need Society cannot afford to have a criminal escape his liability, since that would bring about a state of social pollution, which is neither desired nor warranted and this is irrespective of the concept of locus the doctrine of locus-standi is totally foreign to criminal jurisprudence. This observation of ours however obtains support from the decision of this Court in AR Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr . :
1984 (2) SCC 500.
"[PRECEDENT]", AIR [SECTION]3 SC 541, in this case it has also been observed that:-
" In our view it is not necessary to pursue the approach of either of the party. It is well settled that in criminal law that a complaint can be lodged by anyone who has become aware of a crime having been committed and thereby set the law into motion.
In respect of offences adverted to in [SECTION] [ACT], there is a restriction that the same cannot be entertained unless a complaint is made by a court because the offence is stated to have been committed in relation to the proceedings in that court. [SECTION] [ACT] is invoked to get over the bar imposed under [SECTION] [ACT]. In ordinary crimes not adverted to under [SECTION] [ACT], if in respect of any offence, law can be set into motion by any citizen of this country, we fail to see how any citizen of this country cannot approach even under [SECTION] [ACT]. For that matter, the wordings of [SECTION] [ACT] are significant. The Court will have to act in the interest of justice on a complaint or otherwise. Assuming that the complaint may have to be made at the instance of a party having an interest in the matter, still the court can take action in the matter otherwise than on a complaint, that is, when it has received information as to a crime having been committed covered by the said provision. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter. We proceed on the basis that the respondent has locus standi to present the complaint before the Designated Judge "
On these grounds he submitted that appeal be allowed.
4. Ld. Additional PP for the state has opposed the contentions of Ld. counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 precisely for the reason that no evidence has been led in this case. Application filed by the appellant under [SECTION] [ACT] has been dismissed holding that it is premature stage to allow the application. Ld. Additional PP for the state has also filed on record copy of order passed by Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. ASJ, PHC, New Delhi. On these grounds he submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.
5. Contrary to it, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has opposed the contentions of Ld. Additional PP for the state and referred to para No. 3 of judgment "Varsha Heera Vs. State", Crl. Rev. Petition No. 174/[SECTION]8 dated 22.01.[SECTION]9 and the same has been reproduced as under :
"3. that at the highest only the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] of giving false information and causing a public servant to use the power to cause injury to another person, can be said to have been made out. 3. The learned Additional PP for the state points out that the definition of evidence under [SECTION] of the [ACT] includes both oral and documentary evidence. In fact the definition of document read with the later part of the definition of evidence in [SECTION] of the [ACT] would cover a complaint given on the basis of which an FIR is registered and placed before a criminal court. Thus the criminal justice process is set in motion."
Apart from the above citations, ld. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the following judgments:-
Manohar Lal V. Vinesh Anand [SECTION]1Cri.L.J. 2044 Kuldeep Kapoor Vs. Susanta Sengupta126 ([SECTION]6) [PRECEDENT] Amit Chopra Vs. State [SECTION]9 [3] JCC [SECTION]2 State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh [SECTION]4 [1] SCC 547 Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar [SECTION]3 (11) SCC 519 Smt. Krishna And Anr. Versus State Crl M. C. No. 493 of [SECTION]9 [PRECEDENT] Order passed by Hon'ble Court of Ms. [ENTITY], Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in an appeal against order of rejection of [SECTION] of the [ACT] in a complaint and application filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] titled "[PRECEDENT]".
Order passed by Hon'ble Court of Sh. [ENTITY], Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in matter titled "[PRECEDENT]"
Order passed by Hon'ble Court of Sh. [ENTITY], ADJ, Delhi in matter titled "[PRECEDENT]".
Order passed by Hon'ble Court of Sh. [ENTITY], the then ASJ, Delhi in matter titled "Ms. [PRECEDENT]".
1. Ld. counsel for the appellant again submitted that it is stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of [PRECEDENT] that :
"it is well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that any one can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provide for the eligibility of the complainant by necessary implications the general principal gets exclude by such statutory provisions. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the object behind penal statute enacted for larger good of the society. Right to initiate proceeding cannot be whittled down. Circumstances or fettered by putting it into a straitjacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence save and except specific statutory exception"
In judgment State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh [SECTION]4 [1] SCC 547 it has been held as follows:-
"Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to a reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance."
In another judgment [PRECEDENT] it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at."
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. In another judgment Smt. Krishna And Anr. Versus State Crl M. C. No. 493 of [SECTION]9, it has also been observed that -
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. Time and again the Apex Court has stressed the necessity of passing a speaking order and observed that for a sound juristic mechanism, reasoned orders be passed as they act only provide sanctity to the decision but also assure the parties that their case has been heard and decided in a just manner. In the case of M/s. Goyal Enterprises Vs. State of Jharkand reported at [SECTION]8(2) JCC (NI) 156 the Apex Court held:
6. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief in its order, indicative of an application of its mind: all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable.'"
In another judgment [PRECEDENT], has again reiterated the need and requirement of passing a reasoned order. It has been observed that:
"5. Before we part with, we would like to observe that this case necessitates making certain comments on the importance of rationale legal reasoning in support of judicial orders
9. However, there is no discussion worth the name, in the impugned judgment, as to how and on what basis the High Court accepted such a plea of the respondents herein, in recording its conclusion that it was a case of rendition of accounts simplicitor.
13. We are of the opinion that while recording the decision with clarity, the Court is also supposed to record sufficient reasons in taking a particular decision or arriving at a particular conclusion. The reasons should be such that they demonstrate that the decision has been arrived at on a objective consideration.
14. When we talk of giving "reasons" in support of a judgment, what is meant by "reasons"? In the context of legal decision making, the focus is to what makes something a legal valid reason. Thus, "reason would mean a justifying reason, or more simply a justification for a decision is a consideration, in a non- arbitrary ways in favour of making or accepting that - decision. If there is no justification in support of a decision, such a decision is without any reason or justifying reason.
15. We are not entering into a jurisprudential debate on the appropriate theory of legal reasoning. It is not even a discourse on how to write judgments. Our intention is to simply demonstrate the importance of legal reasoning in support of a particular decision. What we have highlighted is that instant is a case or arriving at a conclusion, in complete absence of reasons, what to talk of adequate or good reasons that justifying that conclusion."
In another judgment S.P. Chengalavaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath AIR [SECTION]4 SC 853, it has been observed that:-
"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him, which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 01.04.2010 in [PRECEDENT] in Civil Appeal No. 7982 of [SECTION]2 held in para 15 that:
"It is settled law that a person who approaches for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. "
1. Ld. counsel for the appellant again submitted that respondents have indulged in judicial voyeurism and has abused the process of law by giving false and fabricated statements, by concealing material facts from the knowledge of the Court and by deliberately giving false/contradictory statements and making gross misrepresentations. The respondent no.2/complainant, has launched the criminal prosecution having full knowledge that the aforesaid accused persons are falsely implicated in the present matter. Despite the same, the complainant/respondent no. 2 deliberately, intentionally and fraudulently initiated false and malicious prosecutions by giving evidence in the proceeding before the Hon'ble Court against the aforesaid accused persons with malafide motive and to cause annoyance and legal injury to them & hence have made themselves liable for prosecution u/[SECTION] [ACT] as the complainant has given false complaint with intent to procure conviction for offences also punishable with imprisonment. The respondent no. 2 /complainant is receivable as evidence hence the /respondent no.2/ non-applicant/complainant also committed offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT]. The respondent no. 2/ complainant / non-applicant intentionally omitted to give / suppressed / concealed material information as stated herein above. Further, as the respondent no. 2/ complainant fraudulently and dishonestly and with intent to injure or annoy the aforesaid accused persons, made a claim in the court of justice knowing it to be false and hence committed the offences punishable u/[SECTION], [SECTION] & [SECTION] [ACT].
2. Ld. counsel for the appellant again submitted that it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao ([SECTION]5) 6 Supreme Court Cases 149 that:
"That suppression of material fact or misrepresentation amounted to fraud"
3. Ld. counsel for the appellant again argued and submitted that there is no statutory requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person(s) against whom that Court might file a complaint before the Ld. Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings. Court cannot grant permission to the respondent to produce evidence in defence.
4. Again, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it has recently been notified vide Notification No. 127/Rules/DHC dated 14.03.2011 in the amended Delhi High Court Rules that it is not mandatory that person concerned should be called upon to give explanation before ordering his prosecution while initiating proceedings u/[SECTION] [ACT]. The offences have been committed by the respondent against the court of law who dishonestly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court and misguided the Hon'ble Court by asserting false statement on oath in the court and in the complaint due to which the Hon'ble Court may use/have used its powers against the appellant by issuing process of law against the appellant. This has been all due to the misdeeds of the respondent no2 who knowingly asserted false facts before the Hon'ble Court and used the powers of the court as his own.
5. Ld. counsel for the appellant again submitted that vide the combined impugned order dated 04.04.2016, the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed two applications, both on the ground of locus, that is, one under [SECTION] [ACT] and another under [SECTION] [ACT] The present Appeal has been filed only in respect of dismissal of application under [SECTION] [ACT] and the Appellant reserves its right to prefer appropriate remedy against the dismissal of application under [SECTION] [ACT] On these grounds and on the strength of the above mentioned citations he submitted that appeal petition be allowed.
6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. Counsel for the appellants and ld. APP for the State as well. I have also perused the all citations referred [supra]. Perusal of the case file reveals that ld. Trial court allowed the application filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] and directed the SHO concerned to register the case and investigate the matter on the complaint of complainant and during these proceedings of this case, an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed by the appellants, which was dismissed by the ld. Trial Court observing that:-
" As per [SECTION] of [ACT], Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence has to proceed with the examination of the complainant and the witnesses produced on his behalf. No where in the [SECTION] of the [ACT] there exist any intermediary stage for appearance by the proposed accused persons to make intervention in the case proceedings. From the entire scheme of [SECTION] of [ACT] it is clear that accused persons does not come into picture at all till the process is issued. Also Hon'ble Apex Court held in "[PRECEDENT] that:
"it is clear from the entire scheme of [SECTION] of the [ACT] that accused persons does not come into picture at all till the process is issued. This does not mean that he has precluded from being present when an inquiry is held by Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through ld. Counsel or agent with view to be informed of what is going on but since the very question for consideration have whether he should be called upon to have accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceedings nor has a Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. It would follow from this, therefore, that it would be open to Magistrate to put any questions to witnesses at the instance of a person named as accused but against whom process has not been issued; nor can he examine any witness at the instance of such a person. Of course, the Magistrate himself is free to put such questions to the witness produced before him by complainant as he may think proper in the interest of justice but beyond that he can go".
It is clear from laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment that accused persons have no 'locus standi' to appear before the Court, make appearance or file applications whatsoever and claim any right of hearing before they are summoned. This court cannot devise any procedure inconsistent to statutory law and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and confer 'locus standi', on the proposed accused persons by allowing them to participate in the proceedings at post cognizance stage without being summoned for any offence. This court has to meticulously adhere to the codified law and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for that purpose. Law has been appropriately codified by the legislature under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as to how the court should proceed and after careful perusal of the legal provisions contained in the [SECTION] of the [ACT] this court reached to the conclusion that proposed accused persons does not have any 'locus standi' in this case at this stage." In light of the aforesaid observations made by ld. Trial Court while dismissing the application filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] I am of the view that there is no force in the contentions of ld. Counsel for the appellants precisely for the reasons that if the appeal petition is allowed by way of setting aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 it may not only impact the administration of criminal justice but also make the administration of criminal justice system dysfunctional. It can only be entertained by the ld. Trial court when there appears to be patent and apparent error on record. Apart from this, order for direction of registration of FIR can only be set aside on the ground of propriety and correctness as the discretion has been vested in the trial court. In the present case since the investigation is yet to be concluded therefore, I do not find any substance against the observations of ld. MM, at this stage. At the most an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] can be filed by the appellants in the designated court as observed in "[PRECEDENT]" referred [supra]. Apart from this, the matter is at the stage of investigation, therefore, the application filed u/[SECTION] [ACT] has rightly been dismissed by the ld. Trial court vide impugned order dated 04.04.2016 as the appeal petition is not maintainable on account of its maintainability and locus standi at this stage. Accordingly, appeal petition stands disposed of. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Appeal petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25.04.2016 ([ENTITY]) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI