IR2001 SC 1142 , 2001 (1 )ALD(Cri)573 , 2001 (42 ) ACC 719 , 2001 (2 )BLJ(SC )164 , I (2001 )CCR267 (SC ), (2001 )3 CompLJ23 (SC ), 2001 CriLJ1264 , 2001 GLH(2 )795 , 2001 INSC 112 , JT2001 (3 )SC 130 , 2001 (1 )KLT870 (SC ), 2002 -1 -LW(Crl)131 , 2001 (2 )RCR(Criminal)106 , RLW2001 (1 )SC 172 , 2001 (2 )SCALE216 , (2001 )3 SCC462 , [2001 ]2 SCR90 , 2001 (1 )UC593 , ,MANU/SC/0126/2001
K.T. Thomas#R.P. Sethi#B.N. Agrawal#398SC3050Judgment/OrderACR#AIR#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#BLJ#CCR#CompLJ#CriLJ#GLH#INSC#JT#KLT#LW(Criminal)#MANU#RCR (Criminal)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCR#UCK.T. Thomas,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-2416263,16247,15913,16660,16747,16748,16599 -->
MANU/SC/0126/2001
True Court CopyTM EnglishUC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (crl.) 222 of 2001
Decided On: 23.02.2001
Appellants: J.K. International Vs. Respondent: State, Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and B.N. Agrawal JUDGMENT
K.T. Thomas, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The grievance of the appellant is simple and apparently innocuous that he too may be heard by the court. But the High Court rolled down the shutters before him saying he has no right to be heard and the court has no power to permit him to be heard. As his grievance was compounded by such denial he has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. A person accused of certain offences moved the High Court of Delhi for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in a magistrate's court. Appellant informed the High Court that the criminal proceedings were initiated at his behest and hence he too may be heard before the criminal proceedings are to be quashed. A learned single judge of the High Court of Delhi, while foreclosing the appellant from doing so, observed that the Court is "of the considered opinion that the right of the complainant to be heard ceases once cognizance is taken and he cannot thereafter continue to participate in the proceedings as if he were the aggrieved party who must have his say in proceedings."
4. The background is the following. Appellant filed a complaint before the police alleging that respondents 2 & 3 committed offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating. As he felt that no action was taken by the police on the complaint he filed a writ petition before the high Court for a direction to register FIR. However, before the writ petition was disposed of, the police informed the court that the FIR was already registered on the complaint filed by the appellant. Respondents then moved the High Court in a writ petition for quashing the FIR, and the appellant was also allowed to be impleaded in that writ petition. For some reasons the said writ petition was not followed up by the respondents and it was subsequently withdrawn.
5. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against respondents for offences under Section 420 406 and 120B of the IPC and the court issued process to the respondents requiring them to appear before the Court on 31.5.2000. At that stage respondents filed the present petition before the High Court praying for quashin........