Third party has no locus standi to prosecute criminal proceedings, Madras HC

The Madras High Court on Monday emphasised third parties do not have the locus standi to litigate criminal cases that do not personally affect them. As noted in the order passed by Justice N Anand Venkatesh,.“….a rank third party to the proceedings who is neither a victim nor an aggrieved person, cannot be permitted to prosecute criminal proceedings…..… Criminal law does not permit any third party to prosecute a case unless the concerned person is a victim or is in any way aggrieved by the order. In other words, the petitioner must show that its legal rights is impaired or any harm/injury has been caused to it.” .Explaining the reason why the locus standi is so limited when it comes to criminal cases, the Court said,.“If this practice is permitted in a casual manner, a meddlesome bystander can easily decide to attack a person who has been held to be not guilty by a Subordinate Court, by initiating a frivolous proceeding and thereby cause irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of the accused person.“.Summing up the position on locus standi when it comes to the prosecution of criminal offences, it is noted in the order,.“… any offence is considered to be a wrong committed against the society and that is why prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State. It becomes the duty of the State to prosecute an accused person for the offence committed by him..This traditional view has now been expanded and the law has brought a victim of a crime also on par with the State, while prosecuting in a criminal offence. Section 301, 302, proviso to Section 372 etc., of Criminal Procedure Code, clearly underlines the recognition given to a victim to participate in the criminal prosecution..Can this right which has been extended to a victim, can be further extended to a third party who is not in any way related to the case? The plain and simple answer for this question is ‘No’“.The observations were made while dealing with a petition filed against a 2014 order of an Egmore Magistrate Court in a case involving death in judicial custody..The prisoner concerned had died while in judicial custody in 2004. Although criminal proceedings were initiated by the Government as well, the Magistrate eventually found that the prisoner had died due to natural causes (acute heart failure). Neither the Government, nor the deceased prisoner’s family challenged this order..In 2016, a Division Bench of the High Court granted the Prisoners Right Forum liberty to move the Court in accordance with law in the matter. The forum sought to challenge the lower court’s order which had closed the criminal proceedings..However, Justice Venkatesh pointed out even the law does not permit third parties to pursue criminal cases. He observed,.“A Court cannot confer a right upon any person unless it is backed by law. In other words, the law must recognise the right of a person and only then the concerned person can prosecute a case. If the law does not provide for such a right, the Court cannot confer the same in favour of any person. The Division Bench merely said that the petitioner can prosecute his right in accordance with law.”.He also proceeded to highlight that there are very few exceptions to the general rule that third parties cannot pursue criminal cases in Court..“ The only area where the Code of Criminal Procedure does not insist for locus standi is when the law is set in motion. For instance, for an IPC offence, the law can be set in motion even by a rank third party since an information regarding a cognizable offence is enough for the police to register an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., or for a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.“.In the case at hand, however, there was no scope for the Prisoners Rights Forum to claim locus standi, in view of the law as observed above..“The petitioner forum has not suffered any prejudice and its rights are not in any way impaired or it is not a case where the aggrieved person/victim is not able to approach this Court and on their behalf the forum is ventilating their grievance. It is very important for this Court to bear in mind that this Court is not dealing with a public interest litigation in this case and the powers of this Court is well defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Court cannot act beyond the four corners of law.“.The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition, after also briefly citing portions of the lower court order which had noted that the prisoner’s death was due to natural causes.