1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 749 of 2008 1. PREETI W/O PRAVIN DUDHE R/O C/O AVINASH VAIRAGADE,52, DAGA LAYOUT, NORTH AMBAZARI ROAD,NAGPUR .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. PRAVIND S/O MOREHSWAR DUDHE & 3 ORS. R/O PLOT NO.80,DINDAYAL NAGAR,FRIENDS LAYOUT NO.4, NAGPUR 2. MORESHWAR B DUDHE R/O PLOT NO. 80, DINDAYAL NAGAR, FRIENDS LAYOUT NO 4,NAGPUR 3. MRS. PADMA W/O MORESHWAR DUDHE R/O PLOT NO. 80,DINDAYAL NAGAR,FRIENDS LAYOUT NO.4 NAGPUR 4. NAVIN S/O MORESHWAR DUDHE R/O PLOT NO. 80,DINDAYAL NAGAR,FRIENDS LAYOUT NO.4 NAGPUR ... Respondent/s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sanyal, Mr. Khandewale, Advocates for petitioners. Mr. Akolkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Ms. Khade, A.P.P. for respondent no. 5. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 5 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. The petitioner has lodged First Information Report. Based on that, charge-sheet is filed and is converted into Regular Criminal 2 Case No. 3781/2006 and is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 9, Nagpur. The Court is informed that application for discharge filed by the accused is rejected against which all the accused have filed revision in the District Court and the said revision is pending on the file of learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge at Nagpur being Revision No. 345/2008. The petitioner, who is complainant, has filed an application at Exh.-9 in the said revision praying for joining as party respondent in the said revision, which application has been rejected by learned Additional Session Judge-8, Nagpur by order dated 20.10.2008 against that order, this petition is filed. 2. I have heard learned Advocates for both the sides. My attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 301 as well as Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Advocates for petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had filed the first information report, the petitioner has an right to appear and be a party to the proceedings initiated by the accused and, therefore, the application for intervention ought to have been granted. As against this, Ms. Khade, learned A.P.P. submitted that the impugned order passed on 20.10.2008 is in consonance with the provisions of law and application for intervention by complainant is not maintainable as understood in accordance with provisions of Section 301 and 403 3 of the Code for Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the application was rightly rejected. The learned Advocate Mr. Akolkar for the accused supported the stand taken by Ms. Khade, A.P.P. for respondent no.5. 3. Having gone through the impugned order as well as provisions, which were cited before this Court, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner, who is complainant, does not have a separate right to be joined as party in the revision which has been filed by accused challenging the order of rejection of the discharge application. 4. In my view, there is thin distinction between having right to be joined as party and a person having right of audience as envisaged under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application at Exh.9 is for specific purpose, namely application for being joined as intervenor and as per the provisions of law, which were cited before this Court, such an application for intervention cannot be granted as there is no such provision. 5. I have gone through the impugned order. The same has considered all the aspects as understood under Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a correct view of the matter. This writ petition, therefore, cannot be admitted. Hence, the order. 4 Writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. After aforesaid order is passed the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge be directed to hear the petitioner at the stage of hearing of discharge application. It is not necessary for this Court to make positive order in that behalf. At an appropriate stage, it is open for the petitioner to make an appropriate request to the learned Additional Sessions Judge by taking recourse to the appropriate provisions of law seeking audience. If such an application is made, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall consider the same on merits and decide the same, in accordance with law. JUDGE kahale