DHARAMVIR KHOSLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. - for short) praying for declaring the judgment dated 20.12.2006/21.12.2006 to be an infructuous judgment pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. In terms of the aforesaid judgment three accused were tried for the kidnapping and murder of a minor, namely, Abhi Verma alias Herry Verma aged 16 years. He was kidnapped and then murdered by the accused in the said case. The learned Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 20.12.2006 found all the three accused in the case to be guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They were accordingly convicted vide order dated 20.12.2006. All

(2.) the three accused were sentenced to death. The petitioner is a third party to the said case and he is not a person aggrieved of the judgment that has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Besides, he earlier filed a similar petition i.e. C.W.P. No.2815 of 2007. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.2.2007. It was observed by their Lordships that they cannot consider the said petition under the garb of public interest litigation. The petitioner has now filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the question of locus standi it has been stated by the petitioner that he is a permanent citizen of India and as such entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the trial in the present case in which the afore-referred judgment and order has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge has been conducted on the face of a criminally illegal report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is stated to be; "in criminal connivance and conspiracy with all the concerned state terrorists of the Punjab Government with a deliberate mind to undermine the fundamental right of social justice at the cost of the petitioner's never ending injuries i.e. mental torts on the ground of an ever confrontation with the issue "As to whether the present Parliamentary System of Democracy" or the "Demons' Rule in India?"

(3.) After hearing the petitioner and going through the record, in my view, such a petition at the behest of a third party and who is not a person aggrieved by the order would not be maintainable. The Supreme Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, AIR 1993 SC 892 has observed that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold. Therefore, the question of locus standi is confined not only to a public action but also a private action. It was further observed that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from the violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. The petitioner has not been able to show any interest in the litigation and neither he claims himself to be the aggrieved party. In fact in criminal matters it is only the person aggrieved who has a locus standi to approach the Court and seek the necessary relief. In an earlier judgment of the same title i.e. The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary , JT 1991 (3) SC 497 it was observed that even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. The petitioner, therefore, in the circumstances cannot be said to have any locus standi whatsoever in the matter. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is subject to confirmation by this Court. Besides, it is submitted that Criminal Appeal No.105-DB of 2007 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order by the affected persons. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has no locus standi and also the fact that a similar petition has already been dismissed by this Court on 23.2.2007, the petitioner cannot seek any relief by way of moving the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.