Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:
03. 09.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.840 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 M.Badrinarayanan ... Revision Petitioner/Intervener -Vs.- 1. Anandan 2. State by Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Unit D-6, Anna Square Police Station Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Revision filed under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C praying to (i) Call for the records of the case from the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5113 of 2012 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 dated 17.04.2013. (ii) Examine the legality, priority and correctness of the proceedings before the lower Court and also of the findings contained in the impugned judgment. (iii) Set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.5113 of 2012 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 on 17.04.2013 by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and permit the petitioner to engage an advocate to intervene and cross examine. For Appellant : Mr.C.A.Theagarajan For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.E.Chelliah Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Elumalai For Respondent-2 : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ------- ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.5113 of 2012 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 thereby refusing to permit the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and to intervene and cross examine the witnesses in the Calendar Case.
3. The petitioner is none else than one of the blood brother of one Roopan Kumar, who is victim of the fatal road accident occurred at 11 p.m on 27.07.2011. The victim died on the spot and the same is reported to the concerned police station by one of the eye witnesses and on the basis of the complaint given by the third party, a case is registered in First Information Report No.1926 of 2012 on 28.07.2011 and the same was investigated into and culminated as C.C.No.1926 of 2012. The petitioner, who is the brother of the victim, has come forward with a petition before the lower Court seeking permission to participate in the proceedings by examining the witnesses. The petition was, after due contest, allowed to the extent by permitting the petitioner to assist the Public Prosecutor during trial and the petition, insofar as it relates to prayer for cross examination of the witnesses, was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the proposed intervener has come forward with the present Revision Case.
4. The only appeal made to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the brother of the victim aged about 19 years old, he has to be necessarily permitted to participate in the proceedings not to the limited extent of assisting the Public Prosecutor, but also to examine the witnesses, advance arguments and permit to submit written arguments. The petitioner has also in support of the relief sought for herein cited judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (4) CTC833".Sathyavani Ponrani ..vs.. Samuel Raj and others".. The case decided by this Court on earlier occasion arises out of the petition for anticipatory bail. The intervening petition was filed by the father of the deceased. The Sessions Court returned the petition as not maintainable and when the same was challenged before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court, after combined appreciation of the scope of Section 301 Cr.P.C and section 24(8) of the Amendment, was pleased to lay down the principles on the issue as to whether the victim is entitled to be heard and take part in the Criminal Proceedings or not. The general principle so laid down are regarding not only the right of the victim to take part in the criminal proceedings, but to the extent at which the right is extended. The trial Court, after duly considering the objections raised on both sides for and against the relief sought for in the light of the principles laid down by this Court, disposed of the petition in the manner as stated above. While doing so, the trial Court has at the end of paragraph-18 clarified that the petitioner may in accordance with the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble High Court seek permission of this Court at the appropriate stage to examine the witnesses, advance arguments and submit written arguments etc. While according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such observation of the Court is not clarficatory enough insofar as the relief sought for by the petitioner.
5. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ accused, the observation is sufficient enough to answer the prayer sought for and the petitioner is not entitled to any further right in relation to the conduct of the proceedings.
6. This Court is not inclined to accept the objection raised on the side of the 1st respondent / accused. This Court is of the considered view that the 1st respondent / accused has no much say in the matter of participation of the victim or the victim's relatives in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. It is rightly observed by this Court in paragraph 65 of earlier judgment that ".The public Prosecutor conducts the prosecution to the sense of detachment, whereas the victim is attached to the case and the victim is most affected party and any decision made thus have greater impact not on the Public Prosecutor, but on the victim.". As rightly observed by our High Court on earlier occasion, ".that is why the objects and reasons for the amendment is to be duly appreciated, the objects and reasons for the amendment is mainly meant for the victim and is intended to introduce certain rights so that there is no distortion of criminal justice system to maintain the balance between the liberty of the citizens and the societies' interest in maintenance of peace as well as law and order and also to ensure fair and speedy justice, having regard to the growing tendency of the witnesses being induced or threatened to be hostile by the accused/parties, who are influential, rich and beneficiary. Thus the objects and reasons would amply go to show that the same is to introduce only to give more active role for the victims in the system of criminal justice.". In this case, the victim is no more, and his brother, who is the petitioner herein can be treated on the same footing as that of the victim as such he is entitled to the same right available to the victim under the amended provision of law. In my considered view, the end of paragraph-18 of the judgment impugned herein answers the grievance of the petitioner regarding his right to approach the Court to get active role in the conduct of the criminal proceedings.
7. For the purpose of better understanding the same is clarified to the effect that the petitioner is permitted to participate in the conduct of the criminal proceedings and is further permitted to file appropriate application at the appropriate stage before the trial Court to examine and cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses including hostile witnesses in the manner known to law and to advance arguments and to file written arguments and the trial Court shall duly appreciate the capacity under and the anxiety with which such a relief is sought for and duly consider the same in the light of the principles laid down herein and the objects and reasons of the amended provision of law as stated supra and to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time to enable the petitioner to exercise the right available to him under the provisions of law.
8. With this observation, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 03.09.2013 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mra To 1. VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Unit D-6, Anna Square Police Station Chennai 600 005.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. K.B.K.VASUKI,J mra CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.840 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 03.09.2013