Section 339 BNSS | Definition Of Victim Does Not Cover Past Victims Of Accused, Cannot Be Allowed To Object: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the definition of 'victim' in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not cover persons wanting raise objections in a criminal trial against an accused who may have caused the Objector loss or injury in the past, when the accused is being prosecuted by some other victim.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti held, "The definition of the victim as provided in Section 2(y) of the BNSS does not cover in its sweep, the loss or injury which have been sustained by a person in past at the behest of the accused who is being prosecuted by some other victim subsequently."
Senior Advocate Manish Datt appeared for the applicant, Government Advocate C.K. Mishra appeared for the State and Advocate Rahul Rawat appeared for the Objector.
The Court said further, "If the interpretation as proposed by the Objector is taken into consideration for sake of assumption, it would open the flood gates of the litigation and the victims in past all cases will automatically be entitled to raise objection against the accused persons in the subsequent cases which are lodged against the accused persons despite the fact that such victim has no nexus with the subsequent act and has not suffered any losses or injury by the subsequent act of the same accused."
Section 2(y) of the BNSS defines 'victim' as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim.
The applicant in the case contended that the Objector, who was a stranger to the litigation, had no right to prefer any objection nor can move any application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C./ Section 339 of the BNSS and that the application of the Objector was not maintainable.
The applicant claimed that the Objector is in the habit of blackmailing and lodging false cases and the details of past six cases lodged by the Objector against various persons was placed before the Court. It was claimed that the modus operandi of the objector is to pressurise innocent persons and later enter into a compromise.
The Objector countered by claiming that the applicant is a habitual offender and the Objector is one of the victims of the applicant and details of a criminal case filed against the applicant were given. It was further contended that the applicant had an affair with two women of different religions and communal harmony was at stake.
The Court noted that it is undisputed that the Objector is not the complainant on the basis of whose complaint the FIR against the present applicant had been registered. It also noted that the Objector, in the past, had lodged cases against the applicant and other persons.
"As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Objector has no locus unless he has bona fide connection with the cause of action." the Court said, citing the Supreme Court's Judgment in Amanullah And Anr. v. State of Bihar (2016).
The Court concluded, "The present objector in the considered view of this Court has no bonafide connection with the cause of action... The Objector is not a victim as the Objector in connection with the case in hand has not suffered any loss or injury by the act and omission of the present applicant so far as the case in hand is concerned."
"Merely the objector in past had lodged the FIR against the present applicant does not entitle the objector to intervene in every case which is filed against the applicant," the Court remarked.
Cause Title: Ismile Shah v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC No. 46833 of 2024]
Click here to read/download the Order