Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.301, 302 – Permission to conduct prosecution – Respondent sought permission to prosecute in terms of s.302 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 406 r/w. 34 of IPC – Trial court declined the permission – However, the High Court granted permission to conduct prosecution – On appeal, held: Though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate – The Magistrate may consider as to whether the victim is in a position to assist the Court and as to whether the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim – On satisfaction of such facts, the Magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to grant of permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pendency before the Magistrate – High Court granted permission to the complainant to prosecute the trial without examining the said parameters – Therefore, order passed by the High Court and that of Magistrate set aside – The matter is remitted to the Magistrate to consider as to whether the complainant should be granted permission to prosecute the offences u/ss.498-A, 406 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In J.K. International v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., it has been held that if the cause of justice would be better served by granting such permission, the Magistrate’s court would generally grant such permission. An aggrieved private person is not altogether eclipsed from the scenario when the criminal court take cognizance of the offences based on the report submitted by the police. [Para 13][607-E]
2. Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through LRs v. State of Karnataka & Ors., this Court approved the Justice Malimath Committee, wherein the victim’s right to participate in the criminal proceedings which includes right to be impleaded, right to know, right to be heard and right to assist the court in the pursuit of truth had been recognised. [Para 14][607-F]
3. In view of such principles laid down, this Court finds that though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The Magistrate may consider as to whether the victim is in a position to assist the Court and as to whether the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim. On satisfaction of such facts, the Magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to grant of permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pendency before the Magistrate. [Para 15][607-G-H; 608-A]
4. The High Court has granted permission to the complainant to prosecute the trial without examining the parameters laid down hereinabove. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court and that of the Magistrate is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Magistrate to consider as to whether the complainant should be granted permission to prosecute the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC. [Para 16][608-B]
Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC
467 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 81; J.K. International v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC
462 : [2001] 2 SCR 90; Dhariwal Industries Limited v. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors. (2016) 10 SCC 378 : [2016]
5 SCR 212; Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through LRs v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 752 – relied on.
Babu v. State of Kerala 1984 CriLJ 499 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.