Bombay High Court
Sushil Murlidhar Biyani vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 5-Cri.Appln.1007-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1007 OF 2023
IN ABA/331/2023
SUSHIL MURLIDHAR BIYANI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Party in Person.
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior
Counsel) i/b Mr. S. R. Sapkal.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 27.03.2023
PER COURT :-
1. Advocate Sushil Murlidhar Biyani has preferred the
Application, seeking leave to address the Court opposing the
anticipatory bail application of respondent No.2.
2. The Crime bearing No.49 of 2023 has been registered on
his first information report. He has alleged against the accused
that they have played fraud, forged the documents, raised the
huge loan from various banks and cheated common people. He
claimed that the first informant has a right to address the
Court. Therefore, the Court has gone through the First
Information Report and found no whisper alleging that the
applicant has been victimized by the accused. Thus, the Court
2 5-Cri.Appln.1007-23.odt
questioned him about his locus. He has vehemently argued that
he falls under the definition of the term "victim" as defined in
Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also
referred to Sections 193 and 360 of Cr.P.C.
3. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of Pradeep
Kumar Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and another, Writ Petition
(CRL.) No.53 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India), decided on
23.12.2020. The State of Chhattisgarh and another Vs. Aman
Kumar Singh and others, etc. etc., Criminal Appeal Nos.646-
648 of 2023 (@SLP (CRL.) Nos.1703-1705 of 2022, decided on
01.03.2023 with the connected matter. He also relied on the
case of Dashrath s/o Jivanlal Choudhari Vs. The State of
Maharashtra of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1005 of 2022, dated 26.08.2022, Devidas Trimbak Dhepale
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Anticipatory Bail
Application No.1226 of 2022 with other applications dated
04.10.2022 and the Landmark Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and others Vs.
Ashish Mishra @ Monu and another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376.
3 5-Cri.Appln.1007-23.odt
4. In view of the matter, the Court believes that the case of
Jagjeet Singh is most relevant to decide the applicant's locus.
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph
No.24, has observed thus :
"24. A 'victim' within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to
await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to
participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right
to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such
a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of
investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal
or revision. We may hasten to clarify that 'victim' and
'complainant/informant' are two distinct connotations in
criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the
complainant/informant is also a 'victim', for even a stranger to
the act of Crime can be an 'informant', and similarly, a 'victim'
need not be the complainant or informant of a felony."
5. Each citizen of India is bound to inform the police of any
offence that he knew or witnessed. The Indian Criminal
Jurisprudence even respect the stranger to receive his
information if the cognizable Crime has been committed, and
any such person may put the law into motion. Every citizen is
supposed to support the prosecution to find out the truth and
convict or punish a wrongdoer. The present applicant in the
present case has lodged the report disclosing specific incidents
that amount to Crime. On his complaint, the present FIR was
registered. However, the applicant in person has argued that
4 5-Cri.Appln.1007-23.odt
this report is the outcome of some earlier incidents, and the
Crime was also registered in that case. Learned APP assisted
the Court, informing that an earlier Crime had been registered
against the present applicant and the co-accused.
6. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/accused
pointed out that the present accused and her husband had
lodged the report against advocate Sushil Murlidhar
Biyani/applicant, alleging that he does illegal money lending
business. Under the garb of the hand loan, he got two
immovable properties transferred in his name and another in
the name of the person working with him. That was the
grievance against the applicant and co-accused. He has
referred to the report lodged against the present applicant.
7. The term "victim" and first informant/complainant are
distinct as the Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed in Jagjeet Sing's
case. It has been pronounced in the above case that the victim
is entitled to address the Court. They did not wait till the trial
opened. Such a person has a distinct right to be heard at every
step post the occurrence of an offence. Considering the
distinction between the victim and complainant/informant, the
Court is of the view that Mr. advocate Sushil Murlidhar Biyani/
applicant is merely a first informant. His role was over as soon
5 5-Cri.Appln.1007-23.odt
as he lodged the report. At the most, the police may record his
statement, and collect the documents, if any, found relevant to
the Crime. Reading the definition of the term "victim" and the
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagjeet Singh (supra), the Court is of the view that the
applicant is the person who has merely put the law into motion
and not the victim who has right to address the Court. For the
above reasons, this Court is of the view that Mr. advocate
Sushil Murlidhar Biyani/applicant has no locus to address the
Court being not a victim.
8. Hence, Criminal Application stands dismissed.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
