1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APP) No. 842/2010 IN Criminal Application No.1057/2-010 (Dara Hari Choure and another vs. State of Maharashtra vs Rashid Khan Gaffar Khan ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 13 th June, 2011. Heard Mr A.S.Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. M K Pathan, learned APP for respondent-State and Mr R.R.Vyas and Mr. H R Dhumale for intervenor. By this application for intervention and right to claim audience, the intervenor prays for to intervene in the application for direction to the applicants Dara Hari Keshavrao Choure and Pramod Dongre to add him as respondent so as to contest the application. It is contended on behalf of the intervenor that he was in fact the original complainant /informant in respect of the crime which came to be registered as FIR No. 172/2010. According to the intervenor, there were some illegal actions on the part of applicant no.2 -Pramod Dongre who is guilty of recording fake statement of witness but no offence was registered against him. It is the grievance of the applicant that the higher ups in the Police Department had tried to defend the applicants initially. 2 however they had registered the offence against the applicants herein subsequently. It is also contended with reference to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court dated 8.9.2010 in Cri.W.P. No. 586/2009 whereby the applicant who was the petitioner in that Cri.W.P. No. 586/ 2009, was permitted to participate in the quashing proceedings initiated by Pramod Dongre. It is contended that considering the order dated 8.9.2010 in Cri.W.P. 586/2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the intervenor/applicant has right to participate in the present proceedings. The application is opposed by the applicants herein, on the ground that the intervenor is neither a complainant nor first informant and has no right to be heard or to intervene in the application. It is further submitted that Cri.W.P.No. 586/2009 filed by him was dismissed on 8.9.2010. However, it has been made clear by the Division Bench of this Court that the intervenor/ applicant can move the court and further add the offence in complaint against Pramod and to participate in the quashing proceedings. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the applicant can at the most assist the prosecution but cannot have right to join the criminal application as party-respondent. To counter these submissions, learned Advocate for intervenor placed reliance upon M/s J K 3 International vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 1142, in order to submit that a private person aggrieved by the offence committed has a right to be heard. The complaint initiated at his behest which is sought to be quashed by the accused, the complainant has a right to be heard. Such a right of hearing does not get wiped out merely because the accused is charge-sheeted by the police or that Court has taken cognizance of the offence. Although this submission is countered on the ground that intervenor is neither complainant nor first informant, considering the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Cri. W.P. No. 586/2009, I think intervenor/applicant would have right of audience at the time of final hearing of the application. Application is allowed accordingly. However, the prayer for joining him as party-respondent is rejected. JUDGE Sahare