State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. Subodh P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Amit R. Chutke, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate Assist to Prosecution. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 11/04/2022 Heard Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the nonapplicant/State assisted by the learned Counsel Mr. Bhandarkar. 2. At the outset, a plea has been raised by Mr. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel assisting the prosecution, that he has right of audience before this Court, in support of which, he places reliance upon J.K. International Vs. State, (2001) 3 SCC 462 and Vinay Poddar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 SCC Online Bombay 1389. 3. The said plea is vehemently opposed by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dharmadhikari, by contending that the entitlement of the complainant, is merely to assist the prosecution and nothing else. 43.BA.2282022.odt (2) 4. The relevant provisions in this regard, are encompassed in Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.). Whereas Section 301(1) requires the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court, in which that case is under enquiry, trial or appeal, Section 301(2) permits, any private person, to instruct a pleader to prosecute the proceedings. Holistic view of Section 301(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C. would indicate that they at no point of time of the proceedings, permit any private person or for that matter, any person assisting the public prosecutor, to take over the conduct of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. The language used in the Section indicates that the pleader as instructed by a private person, shall act under the directions of the public prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor and may, with the permission of the Court, submits written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. The language therefore used categorically demonstrates that the pleader instructed in the manner as contemplated in Section 301(2), has a limited role to play, which role is always subservient to that of the public prosecutor. The liberty which is granted to such pleader, is only to the extent of submitting written notes of argument with the permission of the Court after the evidence is closed in the case. In J.K. International (supra), the Court was considering a case, in which the order of issuance of process by the Magistrate was challenged in Writ Petition before the High Court seeking its quashment, in 43.BA.2282022.odt (3) which the complainant was not made a party and an application being made for impleadment and for hearing, came to be rejected by the High Court. It is in that context that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the criminal proceedings were initiated at the behest of the complainant, it would be appropriate, if he was heard before the quashment was permitted. This is what the Court has held therein in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 as under : ( J.K. International Vs. State) "9. The scheme envisaged in the Code of Criminal procedure (for short "the Code") indicates that a person who is aggrieved by the offence committed, is not altogether wiped out from the scenario of the trial merely because the investigation was taken over by the police and the charge sheet was laid by them. Even the fact that the court had taken cognizance of the offence is not sufficient to debar him from reaching the court for ventilating his grievance. Even