In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-8897 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:25.3.2010 Ashok Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Ms. Sonia Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the complainant seeking quashing of the order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure-P.2) whereby the application filed by the complainant-petitioner for giving-up Smt. Rajesh Devi PW as having been won over by the accused has been dismissed. The petitioner lodged FIR No.381 dated 21.11.2008 at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, which has been registered for the offences under Sections 323, 449, 302, 307 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 19.11.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. his younger brother, namely, Mahesh Kumar went to the barber for getting his beard shaved. Meanwhile the incident which is subject matter of the FIR had occurred. During the course of the trial, the case was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on 19.2.2010. On the said date, the complainant-petitioner filed an application for giving-up PW Smt. Rajesh Devi on the ground that she had been won over by the accused. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by holding that the application had not been forwarded by the learned Public Cr. Misc. No.M-8897 of 2010 [2] Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant independent of the learned Public Prosecutor has no locus standi to file such an application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant also has a right to move an application as he is an aggrieved person in the case. In support of her contention, learned counsel cites Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, 2010 (1) RCR (Cr.) 249. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same. In terms of Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the trial of the case is to be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. It is provided that in every trial before the Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conduced by a Public Prosecutor. As such independent of the Public Prosecutor, the complainant has no locus standi to decide as to in what manner the trial in the case is to be conducted and as to who is to be examined or not examined for establishing the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the application for giving up Smt. Rajesh Devi having not been moved by the Public Prosecutor, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified in declining the same. The case of Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is inapplicable to the facts of the present case as the same does not relate to a trial of the case and was for the purpose of entitling the complainant to file an application seeking cancellation of bail. The parameters for seeking cancellation of bail and trial of a case are entirely different. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 25, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*