JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. By this application, the complainant seeks permission to be imp leaded as party/respondent in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that since a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order taking cognizance of the case, it would be complainant's right to be heard because he is the affected party, who, in the first instance, filed the complaint. He draws my attention to Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. , where in the Supreme Court has held that:
"Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the First Information Report lodged by him is clearly recognized by the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 154, Sub-section (2) of Section 157 and Sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the First Information Report lodged by him. There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under Sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take congnizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to pursuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly, of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf of the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of effecting serve of the notice on the informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the First Information Report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him under Sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to service notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate."
2. On that basis, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he would have right to be imp leaded as party and be heard in the petition seeking quashing of the order to the Magistrate taking cognizance. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the judgment cited above is not law for the proposition sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the stage at which the complainant can be heard is only when congnizance has not been taken by the Magistrate. The moment cognizance is taken, then State steps into the picture and the complainant has no right to be heard thereafter. He submits that even in a case where cognizance is taken and person is discharged, the complainant cannot be heard to say that the accused ought not to be discharged. Similar is the case where the accused is to be acquitted, the complainant cannot be heard to say that the accused ought not to be acquitted. The function of the complainant in the police case stops after cognizance has been taken. I find great substance in this argument. He draws my attention to Judgment of this Court in Shri P.V. Narasimharao v. The State 1997 JCC 501, where in this Court, while interpreting Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has held as follows:-
"6. It is crystal clear from the relevant provision of the law cited above that a private party has got no role to play in a case instituted by the State. In all such cases the prosecution is launched by the State and a private party has got nothing to do in such cases. Admittedly, the proceedings in the instant case have been launched by the State through the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha was the complainant before the Division Bench in the case alluded to above. It is also true that they succeeded before the Division Bench and a direction was issued for the registration of the case, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, the role which the applicant assumed came to an end thereafter. Hence the applicant cannot be allowed to intervene in the instant case.
7. A matter very much akin to the matter in hand came up before the Punjab & Haryana High Court as Kuldip Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 CLJ 1159, (para 4)....... "Sub-Section (1) of Section 301, deals with the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case. Under Sub-section (2), a private person can instruct a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, but such pleader can only act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court comes in the picture only if the pleader so engaged wishes to submit written arguments after the evidence is closed. It is thus clear that the Court is unconcerned in the matter of the engagement of a pleader by a private party and of the conduct of the trial by such pleader under the direction of the Public Prosecutor. This matter is exclusively between the party, pleader and the Public Prosecutor........." The application filed by the petitioner to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for permission to allow his counsel to conduct the trial or to participate therein was misplaced.
8. I am also tempted here to cite a few lines from the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Thakur Ram and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, ........"In a case which has preceded on a police report a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of Section 435 are very wide and he ran even take up the matter suo motu. The criminal law is not, however, to he 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. 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 community 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 community to book......."
9. To the same effect arc the observations of a Single Judge of this Court as reported in Anil Kumar Malik v. Delhi Administration Delhi, 1993 JCC 329 and in Parveen Malhotra v. State, ." 3. Having, therefore, hoard learned counsel, I am also of the considered opinion that the right of the complainant to be heard cases once cognizance is taken. He cannot thereafter continue to participate in the proceedings as if he were the aggrieved party who must have his say in proceedings. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused is seeking to undo the cognizance that has been taken and, therefore, would necessarily put the petitioner back into the position where he would have a right to be heard. 5. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel, once cognizance has been taken the role of the complainant comes to an end in a police case. Any proceedings subsequent thereto will not revive the complainant's right to be heard and participate in the proceedings as if cognizance has not been taken. The clock cannot be put back. 6. In this view of the matter, Cr. M. No. 3715/2000 is dismissed. Crl. M. (M) No. 2672/2000. List the matter on 23rd November, 2000. Interim order to continue.