Court Even Where It Is Required To Act As Watchdog Is Not Required To Act Like A Hound: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court remarked that the Court even where it is required to act as a watchdog is not required to act like a hound.

The Jaipur Bench remarked thus in a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition preferred against the Order of the Additional Civil Judge, by which the application of the Complainant to withdraw the complaint filed by him was allowed.

A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “It is not for the Court to decide whether withdrawal is justified on the facts, or whether the offence involved is so serious as to merit punishment. These are matters for the Public Prosecutor to consider. As long as he acts in good faith in seeking withdrawal from prosecution, so long his action is not liable to be challenged. 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.”

The Bench said that the limited role of the Court is only supervisory, and not adjudicatory or appellate in character.

Advocate Arun Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Amit Gupta represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

For various offences pertaining to human trafficking and forgery of documents, a complaint was filed by the Complainant-Respondent against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said complaint revealed commission of various cognizable offences but the same was withdrawn by the Complainant under the pressure of the accused persons. It was further submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in permitting the Complainant to withdraw the Complaint which reveals commission of a cognizable offence, hence, interference of the High Court is warranted.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… a third party to the criminal proceedings who is neither victim nor an aggrieved person can be permitted to prosecute the criminal proceedings. 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.”

The Court elucidated that a Court of law cannot confer a right upon any person unless it is backed by law, that means, 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. 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. Unless this condition is satisfied, the petitioner will not have the locus standi to question the order passed by the learned Court below”, it added.

The Court explained that while an Appeal by a private individual can be entertained but it should be done sparingly and after due vigilance and particularly in a case where the remedy has been shut out for the victims due to mala fides on the part of the State functionaries or due to inability of the victims to approach the Court.

“In the present matter, this Court finds that the complainant has not chosen to file a petition before the High Court. … The Public Prosecutor exercises a power in the nature of a prerogative. 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”, it further said.

The Court also observed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is an alien figure on the landscape of criminal justice system and like the State and Public Prosecutor, the Complainant has also a right to withdraw the complaint, submitted by him, if he does not want to continue the criminal proceedings initiated by him. It added that this power cannot be subject to the wishes of the third persons.

“The provision of Section 33 of BNSS, as relied upon by the petitioner, is not applicable in the instant case since he has not given any information to any Magistrate or Police Officer about commission of any cognizable offence”, it held.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that in the realm of legal proceedings, when the Public Prosecutor is vested with the right and authority to withdraw the prosecution, the Complainant also possesses the prerogative to retract/withdraw his complaint, in case he is not inclined to continue it and hence, the third party lacks the locus standi to impel or compel the Court or the Complainant to persist/continue with the complaint.

“This Court has carefully perused the impugned order and finds that the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court is well founded and satisfactory. The Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the complaint not only on its merits and the reasons assigned by the complainant but also entertaining the prayer of the complainant for withdrawal of the complaint. The petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain this petition. This Court does not find any material to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title- Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7209/2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Arun Sharma

Respondents: Public Prosecutor Amit Gupta, Advocates Ajay Kumar Jain, Samarth Jain, Anshu Agarwal, and Amit Yadav.

Click here to read/download the Judgment