Third Party Has No Locus To Oppose Withdrawal Of Criminal Complaint: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court recently rejected a petition challenging a trial court order that allowed withdrawal of a private complaint, opining that a third party who was neither the victim nor the complainant themselves, had no locus standi to revive the criminal proceedings.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that if such practice is allowed in a casual manner, any “meddlesome bystander” could decide to attack any person by initiating a frivolous proceeding and hence, causing irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of accused person.

A complaint was filed against the respondents alleging various offences like human trafficking and forgery. The Magistrate summoned a police report and found the allegations to be incorrect, and concluded that the complainant had not come to the court with bona fide intentions and clean hands, neither the complainant was found to be having locus standi.

Eventually, a withdrawal application was submitted by the complainant which was allowed by the trial court. This order was challenged by the petitioner, who was neither the victim nor the complainant, on the ground that the withdrawal happened under the pressure of the accused persons.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted and took into account the following facts.

“In the case in hand the petitioner is in no way connected with the proceedings initiated by the complainant against the accused/respondents before the Court below. The petitioner has neither suffered any prejudice nor his rights have been impaired in any way. It is also not the case when the aggrieved person/victim is not able to approach this Court or on their behalf the petitioner is ventilating their grievance.”

In this background, it was held that a court of law could not confer a right upon a person unless it was backed by law. Since criminal law did not permit any third party to prosecute a case unless the person was a victim or aggrieved in any manner, the Court could not confer the same in favour of any person.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam in which it was observed that strictest vigilance had to be maintained to prevent abuse of the process of court especially in criminal matters. Appeal by a private individual, other than the complainant, could be entertained only sparingly and in cases where the remedy was shut out for the victims due to mala fides of the State or inability of victims to approach the court.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the power under Section 321, CrPC to withdraw criminal prosecution.

“In Criminal Law, the State and its instrumentalities enjoy prerogatives, akin to crown prerogatives in England. The power exercised by the Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of such a prerogative. The State may advise him in this regard, but he must exercise his mind independently, and he ought not to act under dictation. If he acts honestly, his act cannot be questioned. The limited role of the court is only supervisory, and not adjudicatory or appellate in character…Every system must work on trust. The court even where it is required to act as a watchdog is not required to act like a hound.”

It was stated that it was not for the Court to decide whether the withdrawal was justified or not. These were the matters for the public prosecutor to consider. As long as he acted in good faith in seeking withdrawal, his action was not liable to be challenged.

The Court held that in the realm of legal proceedings when the public prosecutor was vested with the right and authority to withdraw prosecution, the complainant also possessed that prerogative. Hence, third party lacked any locus to compel the Court or the complainant to persist or continue the complaint.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

Click Here To Read/Download Order