Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the victim has a right to participate in the criminal proceedings but the said right does not extend to overriding the Public Prosecutor, who serves as an independent officer of the Court.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea moved by the complainant for setting aside the Order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the request of the complainant to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge in a case concerning offences under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

While the court denied the trial court's position that the victim has no right to be heard at all, Justice Subramonium Prasad held, "Right of participation would always mean right to be heard, but the victim’s counsel cannot override an argument taken by the Public Prosecutor, nor can the victim argue that the Public Prosecutor has made a wrong submission."

Noting that the Public Prosecutor has a primary role in criminal proceedings, the court said that the victim's counsel can substantiate the Prosecutor's arguments by bridging the gaps, if any, in the prosecutor's argument.

Furthermore, the court opined that if the victim overreaches the arguments or makes arguments contrary to those made by the Public Prosecutor, the trial court will need to restrict the victim.

In support of the victim's role, Advocate Kanhaiya Singhal, appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, wherein it was held that the victim has an inherent right to participate in the criminal proceedings at all stages which include the stage of bail.

However, the court, while citing Apex Court's judgement in Rekha Murarka (supra) held that the counsel for the victim has the right to advance oral argument in support of the question of law but only after the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the present application. "Since the charges are yet to be framed, the trial Court is requested to hear the arguments of the victim as well giving primacy to the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and proceed as per law," it added.

For Petitioner: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal and Ms. Chandni Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State.

Case Title: SACHIN KUMAR AGGARWAL v STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS CRL.M.C. 6489/2022 & CRL.M.A. 25263/2022