Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a petition by a third party seeking to overturn a trial court order that permitted withdrawal of a private criminal complaint and thereby restart the prosecution. The dispute arose from a complaint alleging offences connected with human trafficking and forgery of documents against certain accused persons, which the original complainant later sought to withdraw. Declining to interfere, the Court held that a person who is neither the complainant nor the victim has no locus to challenge such withdrawal or compel continuation of the case. It cautioned that routine acceptance of such interventions could enable a “meddlesome bystander” to trigger or prolong proceedings, risking irreparable harm to the accused’s life and liberty.

The matter arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate permitting withdrawal of a criminal complaint. The original complaint alleged commission of cognizable offences, including offences relating to human trafficking and forgery of documents, against several private individuals and police officials.

Also Read: Remand Leaves Undecided Issue Open; Adjudicating Authority Applies Binding Law As On Decision Date : Supreme Court

The complainant had initially approached the Magistrate seeking action on the complaint. During the proceedings, the Magistrate called for a factual report from the concerned police station. Upon consideration of the police report, the Magistrate found the allegations to be incorrect and noted absence of supporting material. An application was thereafter filed by the complainant seeking withdrawal of the complaint, which was allowed by the trial court.

The petitioner before the High Court was neither the complainant nor the victim but sought to challenge the withdrawal on the ground that cognizable offences were disclosed and that the complaint was withdrawn under pressure. Reliance was placed on statutory duties to inform authorities about cognizable offences. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the trial court had acted within jurisdiction while permitting withdrawal.

The Court examined whether a third party, who was neither the complainant nor the victim, could seek continuation of criminal proceedings after withdrawal of a complaint. It recorded that “the petitioner is neither complainant nor victim in the said complaint” and that the core issue was locus standi.

Explaining the concept, the Court observed that “the term ‘locus standi’ is a latin term…the right to bring in action or to be heard in a given forum”. It stated that “the plain and simple answer…would be in the negative” when such a right is claimed by an unrelated third party.

The Court cautioned that permitting such intervention would allow “a meddlesome bystander” to initiate proceedings, causing “irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of the accused person”. It referred to binding precedents to note that criminal proceedings cannot be used “as an instrument of wrecking a private vengeance…by a third party”.

On the role of the complainant and the prosecution, the Court recorded that “Public Interest Litigation is an alien figure on the landscape of criminal justice system” and that “the complainant has also a right to withdraw the complaint…if he does not want to continue the criminal proceedings”. This prerogative, it stated, “cannot be subject to the wishes of the third persons”.

The Court further observed that a court “cannot confer a right upon any person unless it is backed by law” and that criminal law does not permit prosecution by third parties unless they demonstrate direct prejudice or invasion of legal rights, which the petitioner had failed to establish.

Also Read: Liquidated Damages For Breach Or Delay In Contractual Obligations Are Not Consideration For Any GST Supply; Karnataka High Court Quashes DGGI Show Cause Notice, Orders Refund

The Court recorded that “the third party lacks the locus standi to impel or compel the Court or the Complainant to persist /continue with the complaint” and held that the petitioner was not entitled to seek continuation of the criminal proceedings after withdrawal by the complainant. “This Court has carefully perused the impugned order and finds that the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court is well founded and satisfactory. The Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the complaint not only on its merits and the reasons assigned by the complainant but also entertaining the prayer of the complainant for withdrawal of the complaint”.

“This Court does not find any merit to entertain this criminal misc. petition and as a consequence thereof, this petition is dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate; Mr. Samarth Jain, Advocate; Ms. Anshu Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate

Case Title: Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7209/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand