-.j $-ts * IN THE HIGH COURT + w.P.(CRL) 936l2orI DEEPAK KHOSLA 1. OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Through: Petitioner in versus ..... Petitioner person VIKRAM BAKSHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER o5.o7.2011 This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated O4.O4.2O77 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket District Court, Delhi permitting the learned counsel for the respondent to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to approach the High Court. The exact language of the order which has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge read as under: "The coltrlsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that he wants to withdraw the reuision petition and seeks libertg to moue Hon'ble HigLt Court for appropriate relief. His statement is recorded. Statentent of Shri Visha,l Gosain, Adaocate for the petitioner Vikram Ba,kshi. I am instructed to submit the request for permissfon to withdraw this criminal reuision petition and seek libertg to o/o I i\/, Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified moue Hon'ble High Court for appropriate relief without prejudice to his rights and contentions. RO&AC ASJ-I/ C (South & South East) New Delhi/04.04.2011 sd/ - (R.K.Gauba) Heard. At this stage, the respondent no. 2 moued an application inter alia, seeking dismissal of the reuision petition. Heard further. Record perused. Since the reuision petition is being withdrawn bA the reuisionist, the application does not call for further consideration. The reuision petition is dismissed as withdraun uith libertg to moue Hon'ble HigLI Court as requested. The Tial Court record is returned. The file of ttrc criminal reuision be consigned to Record Room. sd/ _ (R.K.Gauba) ASJ-I/ C (SoutLt & South East) Neut Delhi/ 04. 04.2 0 1 1 " A question was specifically put to the petitioner as to how does he have the locus standi to assail the order dated 04.04.2011 which is passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of a case initiated on the basis of a police report. It has been contended by the petitioner that he has the locus to challenge the aforesaid order and in this regard a reference has been made to the Division Bench Order dated 29.O3.2O11 in W.P.(C) No. 2II4l2OII wherein a direction was given to the learned Trial Court that it shall pass an appropriate order on the request of the petitioner by 31.03.201 1. 3. It may be pertinent here to mention that in the said writ petition, the petitioner has primarily sought two reliefs, namely, a prayer to 2. I '\,{ 3 4t 4. 5. direct the police to supply him all the documents, statement, material etc. collected by the police during the investigation of the offence in respect of FIR No. 16512008 and secondly to treat the petitioner at par with the public prosecutor in the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. I have been informed by the petitioner that the first prayer of the petitioner has already been disposed of by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 31.03.201 1. The second submission which has been made by the petitioner is to the effect that there is a judgment passed by the High Court reported as Sajjan Kumar Vs. State (1996 Crl. lJ 623) wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that even if there is a withdrawal of a revision petition with liberty to take all such pleas as have been taken by the revisionist in the revision petition before the Sessions Court, such a withdrawal is impermissible. On the strength of these two submissions, the petitioner has contended that he has a locus to file the present petition. Mr. Pawan Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel has contended since this is a police case, therefore, the petitioner being the complainant does not have a right to assail the order whereby the learned Sessions Court has only permitted the revisionist to withdraw the revision, with liberty to file an appropriate petition , .J 6. Ll before the High Court. The time to engage a counsel and Bench. petitioner has also sought a week's get a clarification from the Division ,.J ,t 7. I feel that the request of the petitioner does not deserve to be entertained for the simple reason that the law on the subject is very clear. In a police case, the role of the complainant is very limited and has been specifically provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference in this regard can be made to Section 301 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid section reads as under: "307. Appearance bg Public Prosecutors.- (1) The Public Prosecutor or Assf stant Public Proseqttor in charge of a case maA appear an plead usithout ang uritten authority before any Court in uthichthat case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. (2) If in ang such case arLy priuate person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in ang Court, the Public Prosecutor or ' Assistant Public Proseantor in charge of t?rc case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of tlrc Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and ffiW, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments afi,er the euidence is closed in the case.tt B. A perusal of sub clause (2) of Section 301 Cr.P.C. shows that a private party; if he engages a pleader, can only assist the public prosecutor. He can never be put In-charge of the prosecution of the case. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his attention has been drawn to the said provision and it has been contended by him that the said provision would not apply to the petitioner as he has not engaged any pleader. The party who is appearing in person, aJ as a complainant, can certainly be not put at a higher pedestal then a private party who has engaged a pleader. Apart from this, there are only a few circumstances where the complainant has been conferred with a right by way of judicial pronouncement to participate in the judicial proceedings in a police case. These are, firstly, when a closure report is filed when he can file a protest petition, secondly, in a quashing petition, he has to be made a party. Apart from this, he has a limited right of challenging the bail order or apply for cancellation of bail. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the private party does not have any right to assail an order passed in a police case which is necessarily to be conducted by the prosecution. In addition to this if one goes through the impugned order, this is an innocuous order in the sense that the revisionist has sought permission to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to file an appropriate petition before the High Court. Obviously, the present petitioner can be heard in the said petition as and where the same is filed. Therefore, I feel that the first contention of the petitioner does not have any merit. So far as the second point which has been relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, I do not agree with the said judgment for the simple reason that it is a prerogative of the Court where the revision is filed to consider the prayer of the party i.e. the revisionist as to whether he should be allowed to withdraw the 9. I *.-I 10. 6 \arl revision with a view to assail the said order before the High Court or before the Sessions Court. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, a perusal would show that the revisionist had filed a revision petition before the High Court and the same was sought to be withdrawn with liberty to file before the Lower Court i.e. the Sessions Court. This power is concurrent both with the Sessions Court and the High Court and if a party has chosen to file a revision petition in the High Court, it can certainly seek permission to withdraw the said revision with liberty to go to the Lower Court that is the Sessions Court. In any case, the question is of academic interest So far as the impugned order is concerned. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the present petitioner does not have any locus standi to assail the order dated 04.O4.2O11, and accordingly, the petition is dismissed' v.K. sHALr,J 11. JULY KP 05,2O11 F *u 6*rq 7le{ ll Lr)-a"--t") ,, '.._J'