Sri ganeshaye namah

Locus Standi under Criminal Law

Locus standi is a Latin phrase meaning “place

to stand”.

It refers to whether or not someone has the

right to be heard in court.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, locus

standi means "a right of appearance in a court

of justice, or before a legislative body, on a

given question".

Who are the parties under Criminal Law

Accused person : The Person who has beenalleged for committing the crime

Prosecution: State

What is the status of victim ?

Victim :“victim” means a person who has sufferedany loss or injury caused by reason of the act oromission for which the accused person has beencharged and the expression “victim” includes hisor her guardian or legal heir [Section 2(wa) ofCr.P.C ]

Contd…..

The crime victim is not a party to the criminal

case because crimes are considered to be

wrongs committed against society as a whole

Thus any person other than State and Accused

will come under the term 3rd Party under the

Criminal Law.

Locus Standi of 3rd Parties under Cr.P.C

At the time of F.I.R (Sec 154 and Sec 155 of

Cr.P.C)

Appeal : No right to 3rd parties except victim

(proviso of Sec 372,inserted by Ins. by Act 5 of

2009)

Revision : No right to 3rd Parties

High Court (Sec 401) Session Court(Sec 399)

Same Power of Revision

Contd….

Either suo moto,or

Otherwise comes to the knowledge

The term “otherwise comes to the knowledge”

gives locus to third party though not directly

but indirectly.

Thus a researchable question arises here that

whether the 3rd party should be given locus in

criminal revision as a matter of right or not,

Relevant Judicial Pronouncement

Seneviralne v. R., 1936 (3) A.E.R. 36.

“Allowing third parties to enter the arena of

criminal justice would be to destroy

institutional perspectives that have been built

over the years……. State is now recognised as

the Guardian of Criminal Justice.”

Thakkur Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966

SC 911.

“In a case which has proceeded on a police

report, a private party has really no locus

standi.”

Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh

(Railway) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC

298.

“..the narrow concept of ‘cause of action’ and

‘person aggrieved’ and individual litigation is

becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions.”

Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR1987SC 877

"It is now settled law that a criminal proceeding is not aproceeding for vindication of a private grievance butit is a proceeding initiated for the purpose ofpunishment of the offender in the interest of thesociety. It is for maintaining stability and orderlinessin the society that certain acts are constituted offencesand the right is given to any citizen to set themachinery of the criminal law in motion for thepurpose of bringing the offender to book.”

A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, AIR1988 SC 1531

“punishment of the offender in the interests of thesociety being one of the objects behind penal statutesenacted for the larger good of the society, the right toinitiate proceedings cannot be whittled down,circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi.”

D.Gopalan v. Shanthi Alias Vennira Adai, 23January, 1989

“If he can be a complainant for initiation ofcriminal prosecution, he should equally beentitled to oppose withdrawal of the criminalprosecution which has already being initiated athis instance.”

Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, 1991(3) SCC756.

“Even if there are million questions of law to bedeeply gone into and examined in a criminal caseof this nature registered against specified accusedpersons, it is for them and them alone to raise allsuch questions and challenge the proceedingsinitiated against them at the appropriate timebefore the proper forum and not for third partiesunder the garb of public interest litigants."

State of Kerala v. R. Balakrishna Pillai, [1993]2 Kerala Series 752.

“Public interest litigant is an alien figure on thelandscape of criminal justice system…… TheSupreme Court had never recognised locus standiin third parties in criminal law.”

People’s Union of Civil Liberties (Delhi) v.C.B.I & Ors, 1997 Cr.L.J 3242

“A 3rd party has no locus standi to file criminalrevision petition against judicial order as a 3rdparty is neither complainant nor aggrievedparty………. The state is the master ofprosecution and it would be extremely unsafe toaccord locus standi to 3rd party to file a criminalrevision against a judicial order.”

Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria v. State of Gujarat,2012 (114) Bom LR 3549.

“It is a settled position in law that third parties have nolocus standi for intervening in criminal trial. If oneperuses the scheme of the Code of CriminalProcedure, it will be abundantly clear that thirdparties do not have any right to intervene either in thetrial or at appellate stage in the High Court.”

Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh,AIR 2012 SC 1185

“Punishment of the offender in the interest of the societybeing one of the objects behind penal statutes enactedfor larger good of the society, right to initiateproceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribedor fettered by putting it into a straitjacket formula oflocus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, saveand except specific statutory exception.”

Subramaniam Swamy v. Raju, (2013)10SCC465

“A 3rd party/stranger does not have any right toparticipate in a criminal prosecution which isprimarily the function of the state.”…………….

“Generally 3rd party has no locus in criminalmatters but in certain exceptional situations thereis recognition of the limited right of the 3rd

Party.”

Sunita Devi v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(Cr.)No. 245 of 2013.

“A person, not a party to the proceeding orassociated with the offence, doesn’t have any rightto appear before the court.”

Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 3194.

“The society for its orderly and peacefuldevelopment is interested in the punishment ofthe offender. Therefore, prosecution for seriousoffences is undertaken in the name of the Staterepresenting the people which would excludeany element of private vendetta orvengeance.”

Thus this division bench decision of the apexcourt is existing authority on this point .

The Court in India has also been slow inapproving third party intervention in criminalproceedings .

Conclusion

In the light of issues raised and authoritiescited ,I have no hesitation to concur theopinion that locus standi should not beprovided to the 3rd parties in criminal trial dueto the reasons of :

No bar on frivolous and vexatious litigation –Double edged sword

It will also prejudice the rights of accused.

Against the general principle of law : Thereshould be an end to litigation.