RAMESH SINGH CHOUHAN THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner against the application filed by the complainant in the case for being impleaded as a respondent in the case. The impleading applicant who is the complainant in the case seeks that she may be added as a party-respondent along with the State to enable her to make her submissions in the case.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that under Section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code the State and its agencies such as a public prosecutor can alone prosecute the case before the Court and in accordance with section 301, sub-section (2) all that a person like the complainant herein can do is to assist the public prosecutor and file written arguments in support of the case. The contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petition that is filed under Section 482 seeking quashing of the FIR filed in the case for offences of 465, 467, 478 of the Indian penal Code and other related offences. Obviously Section 301 of the criminal Procedure Code cannot govern the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. Section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to proceedings before the Courts subordinate to the High Court. The provisions under Section 482 cannot be regarded as an enquiry or a trial before a Court. The proceedings under Section 482 are in a different plane inasmuch as the inherent power of the Court is invoked to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, it is true that the State has been made a party which is seeking to investigate the complaint that is lodged against the petitioners herein. The complainant is a person really interested in participating in the proceedings to support the action of the State. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant is not, under any provision of the Code, entitled to participate in the proceedings under Section 482. This view cannot be accepted for admittedly there is no specific provision regulating who could be parties to a proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When there is no specific provision barring a certain person from either being made a party at the first instance or a party from moving an application for impleadment, it cannot be said that the complainant in the case ought not to be made a party to this proceedings. How such a situation is dealt with is found etiunciated in Mary Angel and Others v State of Tamil nadu, in para 12 of the judgment it is observed as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon Trilok singh v Satya Deo Tripathi, to support the contention that even on the allegations made in the complaint that blank papers could have been used for fabrication of the Will would not constitute any offence and so the FIR filed in this case ought to be quashed. The relevant observation is to be found in para 5 of the judgment referred to above and in the left hand side column at page 852, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: