Victim Has Right To Participate In Trial But No Right To Be Impleaded In Criminal Revision: Delhi High Court Nupur Thapliyal 25 May 2024 4:20 PM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19.03.2024 Pronounced on: 24.05.2024 + CRL.M.C. 8758/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7381/2024 VLS FINANCE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Chugh, Mr.Jai Allagh, Mr.Maanish M. Choudhary, Mr.Ashok Kr. Sharma, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP for R-1/State. Mr.Vijay Agarwal, Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Mr.Jatin S.Sethi, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA J U D G M E N T 

 The judgment primarily addresses the issue of whether a victim or complainant in a criminal case has the right to be impleaded as a party in revision petitions and other criminal proceedings. The court's decision rests on the interpretation of several sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and relevant case law.

Key Points of the Judgment:

1. Right to be Heard vs. Right to be Impleaded:

   • The court distinguished between the right to be heard and the right to be impleaded as a party in criminal proceedings. While the victim or complainant has a right to be heard in revision proceedings, this does not extend to a right to be impleaded as a party​​.

2. Section 403 and 401(2) of CrPC:

   • Section 403 states that no party has a right to be heard in criminal revision either personally or through a pleader unless the revisional court deems it fit.
   • Section 401(2) ensures that no order to the prejudice of the accused is made without giving them an opportunity to be heard. This section does not explicitly include victims as "other persons" entitled to be heard, but this interpretation may be evolving​​.

3. Supreme Court's Judgment in Jagjit Singh:

   • The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagjit Singh, which acknowledged the evolving jurisprudence regarding victims' rights, particularly in heinous crimes. The judgment recognized victims' rights to participate and be heard from the investigation stage through the culmination of proceedings in appeal or revision​​.

4. Role of Public Prosecutor:

   • The role of the Public Prosecutor remains central in state prosecutions. The victim’s counsel can assist but not replace the Public Prosecutor. The court emphasized that allowing victims to participate does not mean they should take over the prosecution​​.

5. Practical Considerations:

   • The court considered practical implications, such as potential delays in trials if victims were to be issued notices at every stage. The judgment balanced the need for victims to have a voice with the necessity of maintaining an efficient and effective criminal justice process​​.

6. Specific Case Rulings:

   • The court ruled that while victims have participatory rights, these do not extend to being impleaded as parties in every proceeding. The decision to hear a victim should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case, ensuring that the prosecution remains unbiased and efficient​​.

Conclusion:

The judgment clarifies that while victims have significant rights to be heard in criminal proceedings, these rights do not include an automatic right to be impleaded as parties. The court must regulate the extent of a victim's participation to balance the interests of justice and the efficient conduct of trials. The judgment reflects an evolving legal landscape, recognizing victims' rights while maintaining the procedural integrity of criminal prosecutions.