SHANTI DHARIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of applications seeking impleadment/intervention filed by Mr. Ashok Pathak in two sets of petitions, one set of petitions is filed by the accused seeking quashment of criminal proceedings and another set of revision petitions has been filed seeking to challenge the orders passed by the court below rejecting the application for withdrawal of prosecution filed under Sec. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as it then existed) [hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.']. This order shall also govern disposal of application for withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022 filed by the State in the matter to challenge the order passed by the court below rejecting application seeking withdrawal of prosecution filed under Sec. 321 Cr.P.C. (as it then existed).

(2.) Criminal Misc. Petitions under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. (as it then existed) are those which have been filed by the accused in the pending criminal cases.

(3.) Learned counsel for the proposed applicant argued that Ramsharan Singh, original informant lodged FIR, on which preliminary enquiry was conducted and a criminal case under Ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered against the accused. The offences involved allegation of forgery and abuse of official position. Such cases, where the allegation is of wide range corruption by abuse and misuse of official position by the accused persons, have to be distinguished from ordinary offences and all citizens, including proposed applicant, are victims. Such offences are primarily against the society at large. In addition to State being the prosecutor, public spirited individuals such as the present applicant are entitled as of law and public policy to seek impledment and oppose prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings as also the prayer for withdrawal of prosecution. The original informant has died. The proposed applicant was closely associated with the original informant. The State moved applications seeking withdrawal of prosecution which though have been rejected, but the orders have been challenged not only by the State, but by the accused also. Therefore, in these circumstances, even though, now the State has decided not to pursue its application seeking withdrawal of prosecution, yet taking into consideration that the State has been changing its stand off and on, proposed applicant may be allowed to be impleaded as party. The present applicant is interested in ensuring fair trial. Original informant, Ramsharan Singh had also filed petition seeking transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During pendency of the petition, Ramsharan Singh died and his son moved application seeking withdrawal of the petition. At that stage, present applicant sought impleadment in that petition, which was later on dismissed due to death of writ petitioner Ramsharan Singh, the deceased informant. However, liberty was granted to the proposed applicant to pursue his legal remedy. Proposed applicant has also moved an application for filing documents and participation in the proceedings before the trial court. The applicant is an activist, social worker and public spirited citizen of good moral and sufficient understanding for many decades. He has been assisting voiceless victims of Government's arbitrary action in the State of Rajasthan, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or political affiliation. He has acted as mouthpiece for common citizens by filing public interest litigations and many complaints details of which have been given in the application which show that he is not coming for the first time in the present case, but has remained actively engaged in various matters. He has also remained engaged in pursuing social and legal actions against corrupt practices. He is not a vexatious litigant. He has no personal interest in the outcome of the present proceedings and he seeks participation only to assist the Court to reach at just and proper decision and to ensure that prosecution and fair trial is not thwarted by oblique motives. Learned counsel for the proposed applicant has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Dharamaraj Vs. Shanmugam & Others, (2022) 15 SCC 136 M.R. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3373; Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Others, (1987) 1 SCC 288; K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 767; Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2013) 16 SCC 190 Amanullah & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2016) 6 SCC 699; Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Others, (2017) 9 SCC 340 and Abdul Wahab K. vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2018) 11 SCR 155