INDU BALA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two petitions filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in respect of the case registered as F.I.R. No. 198/89 under Sections 498A, 406 etc. of the Median Penal Code.

(2.) The short question which has arisen is whether Mr. K.K. Sud, counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, should be heard in the matter or not ? Mr. P. P. Grover, counsel for the petitioners in these matters, has strongly objected to giving any hearing to the counsel for the complainant.

(3.) It is true that only the State through the Delhi Administration has been joined as respondent in these two petitons and as a matter of fact, a case which the police has investigated on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 198189 only the State is the necessary party. The complainant or the witnesses who might have been examined in support of the case during the investigation are neither necessary nor proper parties. The offences which are committed by the persons are committed against the society and the State is the only party which has to prosecute the accused in those offences before the court of law and if any applications are moved during the trial pertaining to the said offences, it is only the State who can be given any hearing in the matter.