The sessions judge directed the magistrate to companymit the case to the companyrt of sessions.
As he felt that numberaction was taken by the police on the companyplaint he filed a writ petition before the high Court for a direction to register FIR.
The background is the following.
At that stage respondents filed the present petition before the High Court praying for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the magistrate companyrt pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet filed by the police.
In the writ petition the appellant was number made a party and therefore a petition was filed in the High Court for impleading the appellant as a party.
That was a case in which the Public Prosecutor filed an application before a magistrate in a pending trial for amending the charge by incorporating two more offences which are exclusively triable by the companyrt of sessions and prayed for the case to be companymitted by the magistrate to the sessions companyrt.
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.
However, before the writ petition was disposed of, the police informed the companyrt that the FIR was already registered on the companyplaint filed by the appellant.
For some reasons the said writ petition was number followed up by the respondents and it was subsequently withdrawn.
The main plank of the appellant before the High Court was the decision of this companyrt in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police 1985 SCC 537.
Then the accused moved this companyrt by special leave.
The criminal law is number, however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, has caused injury to it.
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.
It may number be that the companyplainant should have been made a party by the accused himself in the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings, as the accused has numbersuch obligation when the case was charge sheeted by the police.
The said order of the sessions companyrt was challenged by the accused before the High Court, but that challenge was unsuccessful.
The magistrate dismissed the application, but prosecution did number challenge the order passed by the magistrate.
The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against respondents for offences under Section 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC and the companyrt issued process to the respondents requiring them to appear before the Court on 31.5.2000.
A person accused of certain offences moved the High Court of Delhi for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in a magistrates companyrt.
A learned single judge of the High Court of Delhi, while foreclosing the appellant from doing so, observed that the Court is of the companysidered opinion that the right of the companyplainant to be heard ceases once companynizance is taken and he cannot thereafter companytinue to participate in the proceedings as if he were the aggrieved party who must have his say in proceedings.
As his grievance was companypounded by such denial he has filed this appeal by special leave.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the companymunity at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the companymunity to book.
LITTTTTTTJ The grievance of the appellant is simple and apparently innocuous that he too may be heard by the companyrt.
Appellant filed a companyplaint before the police alleging that respondents 2 3 companymitted offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
