Supreme Court

Sanjai Tiwari vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

MANU/SC/0945/2020

16.12.2020

Criminal

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC filed by a person unconnected with proceedings cannot be ordinarily entertained by High Court

Present appeal has been filed questioning the order passed by the High Court in application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by Respondent No.2 on which application the High Court directed the trial Court to expedite the criminal trial and conclude the same at the earliest. The Appellant is an accused in FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(1) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the Appellant questioning the order of the High Court submits that, the High Court committed error in entertaining the application under Section 482 of CrPC at the instance of Respondent No.2 who had no locus standi to file a petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

It is well settled that, criminal trial where offences involved are under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be conducted and concluded at the earliest since the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act are offences which affect not only the accused but the entire society and administration. It is also well settled that, the High Court in appropriate cases can always direct trial Court to expedite the criminal trial and issue such order as may be necessary. But the present is a case where proceeding initiated by Respondent No.2 does not appear to be a bona fide proceeding. Respondent No.2 is in no way connected with initiation of criminal proceeding against the Appellant. Respondent No.2 in his application under Section 482 of CrPC has described him as a social activist and an Advocate. An application by a person who is in no way connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial under Section 482 of CrPC cannot ordinarily be entertained by the High Court.

A criminal trial of an accused is conducted in accordance with procedure as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is the obligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to the accused if found guilty. The present is not a case where prosecution or even the employer of the accused have filed an application either before the trial Court or in any other court seeking direction as prayed by Respondent No.2 in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

With regard to locus of a third party to challenge the criminal proceedings or to seek relief in respect of criminal proceedings of accused had been dealt with by present Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others. This Court in the above case laid down that, it is for the parties in the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of Public Interest Litigants.

Respondent No.2 has no locus in the present case to file application under Section 482 of CrPC asking the Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. The application filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 482 of CrPC is dismissed. It will be open for the trial court to expedite the criminal trial, the offences being the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to any order passed by the High Court in pending proceedings. Judgment of the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Third party Locus standi Legality

Share :