IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.MP.SR.Nos.46425 and 61521 of 2023 in

Crl.RC.No.1419 of 2023

Anti Corruption Movement

Rep.by its General Secretary

No.155 Konnur High Road

Ayanavayam

Chennai-23.                                                                                                                … Petitioner/Proposed

Respondent

-vs1.State rep.by

   The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing    Villupuram.

   (Crime No.4 of 2002)

2.Mr.K.Ponmudi (A1)

3.Smt.P.Visalatchi (A2)                            …Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Crl.PC and Article 227 of Constitution of India to permit the petitioner/proposed respondent to implead in Crl.RC.No.1419 of 2023 as 4^th respondent.

                                  For Petitioner            : Mr.N.Subramaniyan

                                             COMMON ORDER N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. These petitions have been filed by a third party seeking (a) impleadment as a party respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2023 and (b) for a direction to the Registry to furnish certain documents in connection with this case. The Registry has entertained doubt as to the maintainability of these petitions and have placed the papers before this Court for appropriate orders. The petitioner is seeking for impleadment on the ground that he is desirous of assisting this Court in connection with this case.
2. It is elementary that in criminal matters the State is ordinarily treated as the aggrieved party entrusted with the duty of prosecuting offenders as the custodian of the interests of the community at large. Courts have frowned upon interlopers and wayfarers from seeking to intermeddle in criminal matters. In Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, (1966) 2 SCR 740, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that barring a few exceptions (which do not arise here), in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large, and consequently it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book.
3. This statutory monopoly of the State was diluted slightly vide the

Code of Criminal Procedure, (Amendment) Act, 2009 which inserted Section 2(wa) into the Code giving a voice to the victims of criminal offences in the criminal justice system. Barring this exception, the Courts have consistently resisted the advances of unwelcome visitors seeking to intermeddle themselves in the administration of criminal justice. If the Court requires any assistance on a point of law, it can always seek the assistance of an Amicus Curiae to clarify the position. But at any rate, a criminal court is certainly not an open theatre for publicity seekers to display their creative talents.

• In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1991) 3 SCC 756, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:

“26. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.”

 Similarly, in  Subramanian Swamy  v. Raju, (2013) 10 SCC 465,  the Hon’ble Supreme  Court rejected intervention by a third party and observed as follows:

“8. The administration of criminal justice in India can be divided into two broad stages at which the machinery operates. The first is the investigation of an alleged offence leading to prosecution and the second is the actual prosecution of the offender in a court of law. The jurisprudence that has evolved over the decades has assigned the primary role and responsibility at both stages to the State though we must hasten to add that in certain exceptional situations there is a recognition of a limited right in a victim or his family members to take part in the process, particularly, at the stage of the trial. The law, however, frowns upon and prohibits any abdication by the State of its role in the matter at each of the stages and, in fact, does not recognise the right of a third party/stranger to participate or even to come to the aid of the State at any of the stages.”

5.From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that this petition filed at the instance of a person who is neither an accused nor a victim is not maintainable and amounts to a clear abuse of process. Consequently, the objections raised by the Registry are sustained, and these petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.

08.01.2024

kp

Internet: yes

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. Kp

Crl.MP.SR.Nos.46425 and 61521 of 2023 in Crl.RC.No.1419 of 2023

08.01.2024