Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganga Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1 CRA-3748-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3748 of 2025
(GANGA PATHAK AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 30-04-2025
Shri Manish Datt-Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Sharma,
advocate for the appellants..
Shri Alok Agnihotri-G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for the objector.
This order shall dispose of the objection raised by appellants/accused as to the locus standi of objector Ramakant Satnami so as to file objection and to be heard on appeal pertaining to anticipatory bail filed by the appellants/accused.
2 . Learned senior counsel for the appellants/accused submits that objector Ramakant Satnami is neither an aggrieved person nor victim in the case. In the instant case, no right of any nature whatsoever of objector Ramakant Satnami is going to be affected in any manner whatsoever. Present case pertains to four sale deeds pertaining to different persons but aforesaid sale deeds do not pertains to any land of objector Ramakant Satnami. Aforesaid sale deeds pertain to land of Karori, Sarju, Ojear, Kinto Bai, Kallu Bai, Pradeep Chouhan.
3 . Learned senior counsel also submits that objector Ramakant Satnami does not come within the purview of definition of 'victim' as mentioned in Section 2(y) of BNSS. Though, instant offence has been registered on the basis of complaint made by four persons, including objector Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01 2 CRA-3748-2025 Ramakant Satnami, but the same does not give any locus standi to objector Ramakant Satnami to object and to be heard in the instant case. Objector Ramakant Satnami is a third party. He is neither victim nor affected person. With respect to aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the appellants has relied upon Sanjai Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 15 SCC 660, Thakur Ram and others Vs. State of Bihar, 1965 SCC Online SC 14, Kishore Samrite Vs. Shivraj Singh Cahuhan and others, 2010 SCC Online Mp 415 and M.Cr.C. No. 43828/2024 (Vinod Tiwari Vs. The State of MP) order dated 06.01.2025, M.Cr.C. No. 46833/2024 (Ismile Shah Vs. State of MP) order dated 18.12.2024. On above grounds, it is urged that objector Ramakant Satnami has no locus standi to object and to be heard in the instant case.
4. Learned counsel for the objector submits that it is objector Ramakant Satnami, on whose complaint, instant offence has been registered. Instant case pertains to sale of land belonging to persons of scheduled tribe, whose land has been sold without permission of Collector. It is also urged that after objector Ramakant Satnami and others persons made a complaint, the matter got inquired by SDM and thereafter, Naib Tehsildar has lodged the report. It is also urged that writ petition, filed by the petitioner's son, has been dismissed. It is also urged that objector Ramakant Satnami is not a third party/stranger to the case. He is a complainant. He is not social activist/ private person. Therefore, he has right to object and to be heard in the instant case.
5 . Learned counsel for the State submits that as objector Ramakant Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01 3 CRA-3748-2025 Satnami is a complainant., therefore, he has a right to object and to be heard in the instant case. It is also urged that on the basis of complaint made by objector Ramakant Satnami, instant offence has been registered against the appellants. Hence, objection raised by the appellants be dismissed.
6. Heard. Perused record of the case.
7 . So far as question of " locus standi" of objector in the instant case is concerned, Honb'el Apex Court in Amanullah and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2016) 6 SCC 699, has extensively discussed term " locus standi"
and has held as under:-
"19. The term 'locus standi' is a latin term, the general meaning of which is 'place of standing'. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edn., at page 834, defines the term 'locus standi' as the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. The traditional view of 'locus standi' has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court, i.e., to say he only has a right to move the court for seeking justice. Later, this Court, with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict rule with regard to 'locus standi', allowing any person from the society not related to the cause of action to approach the court seeking justice for those who could not approach themselves. Now turning our attention towards the criminal trial, which is conducted, largely, by following the procedure laid down in the CrPC. Since, offence is considered to be a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State. It is the duty of the State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him. The focal point, here, is that if the State fails in this regard and the party having bonafide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the order of the court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and without any option to approach the appellate court for seeking justice.
20. In this regard, the Constitution Bench of this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01 4 CRA-3748-2025 in the case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham Vs. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141 has elaborately dealt with the aforesaid fact situation. The relevant paras 14 and 25 of which read thus:
14. Having said this, we must emphasise that we are living in times when many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievance when the State becomes the sole repository for initiation of criminal action. Sometimes, pachydermic indifference of bureaucratic officials, at other times politicisation of higher functionaries may result in refusal to take a case to this Court under Article 136 even though the justice of the lis may well justify it. While "the criminal law should not be used as a weapon in personal vendettas between private individuals", as Lord Shawcross once wrote, in the absence of an independent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citizen, a wider connotation of the expression "standing" is necessary for Article 136 to further its mission. There are jurisdictions in which private individuals -- not the State alone -- may it statute criminal proceedings. The Law Reforms Commission (Australia) in its Discussion Paper No. 4 on "Access to Courts -- I Standing: Public Interest Suits" wrote:
"The general rule, at the present time, is that anyone may commence proceedings and prosecute in the Magistrate court. The argument for retention of that right arises at either end of the spectrum -- the great cases and the frequent petty cases. The great cases are those touching Government itself -- a Watergate or a Poulson. However independent they may legally be any public official, police or prosecuting authority, must be subject to some government supervision and be dependent on Government funds; its officers will inevitably have personal links with government. They will be part of the 'establishment'. There may be cases where a decision not to prosecute a case having political ramifications will be seen, rightly or Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01 5 CRA-3748-2025 wrongly, as politically motivated. Accepting the possibility of occasional abuse the Commission sees merit in retaining some right of a citizen to ventilate such a matter in the courts."
Even the English System, as pointed by the Discussion Paper permits a private citizen to file an indictment. In our view the narrow limits set in vintage English Law, into the concept of person aggrieved and "standing" needs liberalisation in our democratic situation. In Dabholkar case this Court imparted such a wider meaning. The American Supreme Court relaxed the restrictive attitude towards "standing" in the famous case of Baker Vs. Carr, 1962 SCC Online US SC 40 .
Lord Denning, in the notable case of the Attorney- General of the Gambia v. N'jie, 1961 AC 617 , spoke thus:
"... the words "person aggrieved" are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him;"
Prof. S.A. de Smith takes the same view:
"All developed legal systems have had to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of the public interest -- the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law, and the undesirability of encouraging the professional litigant and the meddlesome interloper to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in matters that do not concern him."
Prof. H.W.R. Wade strikes a similar note:
"In other words, certiorari is not confined by a narrow conception of locus standi. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01 6 CRA-3748-2025 contains an element of the actio popularis. This is because it looks beyond the personal rights of the applicant; it is designed to keep the machinery of justice in proper working order by preventing inferior tribunals and public authorities from abusing their powers."
In Dabholkar case, one of us wrote in his separate opinion:
"59......The possible apprehension that widening legal standing with a public connotation may unloose a flood of litigation which may overwhelm the Judges is misplaced because public resort to court to suppress public mischief is a tribute to the justice system."
This view is echoed by the Australian Law Reforms Commission.
8. Further, present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
9. Section 2(e)(c) of SC/ST (PA) Act defines 'victim' as under:-
"victim" means any individual who falls within the definition of the "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" under clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 2, and who has suffered or experienced physical mental, psychological, emotional or monetary harm or harm to his property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act and includes his relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs"
10. Perusal of Section 15(A) of SC/ST (PA) Act also reveals that therein certain rights have been given to 'victim' of the offence.
11. Section 2(y) of BNSS also defines term 'victim' as under:-
"victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim;"Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01
7 CRA-3748-2025 1 2 . It is also well established that generally in criminal case, prosecution is to be conducted by public prosecutor etc. and not by private person. This is evident from Section 339 (1) of BNSS which reads, as under:-
"339. Permission to conduct prosecution : -1. Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate-General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission."
13. Now facts of the case would be examined in the light of aforesaid pronouncements as well as provisions of law.
14. Admittedly, in the instant case, initially a written complaint was made by objector Ramakant Satnami and other persons against appellants and the same was inquired into and thereafter FIR was lodged against appellants and other persons by Naib Tehsildar and on the basis of aforesaid, FIR bearing No. 120/2025 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act has been registered against the appellants and other persons. But at the same time from case diary, it is evident that the written complaint, made by objector as well as other persons, pertains to four sale deeds and aforesaid four sale deeds pertains to land belonging to different persons. It is also evident from record of the case that aforesaid sale deeds did not pertain to any land owned/possessed by objector and objector is not connected in any manner, whatsoever, with any of the land pertaining to aforesaid four sale deeds.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:018 CRA-3748-2025 Thus, in the instant case, objector Ramakant Satnami is only one of the "informants" and he is not a victim/aggrieved person. His rights are not directly or indirectly affected in the instant case.
15. Further, in a given case, ' victim' and 'complaint/informant' may be one and the same person and they may also be different person i.e. it may be that one person may be victim but complainant/informant may be a different person. Thus, complainant/informant and victim may or may not be one and the same person. They may also be different persons.
16. Further, a cognizable offence may be reported by any person and in case of cognizable offence, a stranger/ third party, who is not a victim/whose any right is not directly and indirectly affected, can also set the criminal law in motion/criminal prosecution by reporting the matter to competent authority. It is also evident from Section 33 of BNSS, which imposes a duty on every person, aware of the commission etc. of any offence as mentioned in the Section, to report the same forthwith to the nearest Magistrate or police officer.
17. In this Court's opinion term 'victim, cannot be interpreted/construed so as to include any person, whose right is not affected directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever. Further, filing of public interest litigation before Court is entirely altogether different from giving an opportunity of hearing and to object in a criminal case and both cannot be equated.
18. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, in this court's considered opinion, objector Ramakant Satnami cannot be termed as Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01 9 CRA-3748-2025 "victim" in the instant case. Further, it is also evident that objector Ramakant Satnami's no right is affected in the instant case directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever. He is only an "informant" in the instant case and nothing more. Having regard to provisions of BNSS as well as SC/ST (PA) Act, objector Ramakant Satnami, who is just an "informant", cannot be allowed and permitted to object and to be heard in the instant case.
19. Resultantly, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, objection raised by senior counsel for the appellants is allowed and it is held that objector Ramakant Satnami has no right to object and to be heard in the instant case.
20. Accordingly, Objection is disposed off.
21. List the case in the next week.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R. Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 05-05-2025 17:43:01