Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

rt Whereas, the pleader engaged by a person, who is a de facto complainant has a personal interest in the case.

15. Now, adverting to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. Kishore Wadhwani and others AIR 2016 SC 4369, it would be noticed that the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court had modified the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby he had permitted the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Dhariwal Industries) to be heard at the stage of framing of charge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by expressing the view that the role of the complainant was limited under Section 301 Cr.P.C. and that he could not be allowed to take control over the prosecution by directly addressing the Court, but can only act under the directions of the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court not only upheld the order passed by the Bombay High Court, but it even explained the distinction between Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. as would be evident from the following observations:

"8. Section 301 CrPC reads as follows:-

"Appearance by Public Prosecutors.-(1) The Public .

14. rt Having carefully perused both the decisions, we do not perceive any kind of anomaly either in the analysis or ultimate conclusion arrived by the Court. We may note with profit that in Shiv Kumar (supra), the Court was dealing with the ambit and sweep of Section 301 CrPC and in that context observed that Section 302 CrPC is intended only for the Magistrate's Court. In J.K. International (supra) from the passage we have quoted hereinbefore it is evident that the Court has expressed the view that a private person can be permitted to conduct the prosecution in the Magistrate's Court and can engage a counsel to do the needful on his behalf. The further observation therein is that when permission is sought to conduct the prosecution by a private person, it is open to the court to consider his request. The Court has proceeded to state that the Court has to form an opinion that cause of justice would be best subserved and it is better to grant such permission. And, it would generally grant such permission. Thus, there is no cleavage of opinion.

19. .We would have proceeded to deal with the relief prayed for by Mr. Tulsi but, no application was filed under Section 302 CrPC and, therefore, the prayer was restricted to be heard .

which is postulated under Section 301 CrPC. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that an application has to be filed while seeking permission. Bestowing our anxious consideration, we are obliged to think that when a complainant wants to take the of benefit as provided under Section 302 CrPC, he has to file a written application making out a case in terms of J.K. International (supra) so that the Magistrate can exercise the jurisdiction as vested in him and form the requisite opinion." rt