Judgment : JANARTHANAM, J. ( 1 ) ONE Usha lodged an information before the Inspector of Police, Dowry Prohibition Cell, Nagercoil for the alleged cruelty meted out to her at the hands of her husband Muthuswamy, his sister Visalam and her husband Thanappa, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 3/91. After complying with the formalities of the investigation a final report under section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the codet) had been laid and the had been taken on file as C. C. No. 37 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tirunelveli against those three persons mentioned in the First Information impleading them as accused 1 to 3 respectively. ( 2 ) ON receipt of process, the accused entered appearance through a counsel of their choice and, thereafter, accused 2 and 3 filed Cr1. O. P. No. 10255 of 1991 impleading the Inspector of Police Dowry Prohibition Cell, Nagercoil, as the only respondent to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them and also obtained stay of further proceedings. ( 3 ) ONE Eswaramoorthy, father of the complainant namely Usha took out the present application to implead him as respondent No. 2 in Cr1. O. P. No. 10255 of 1991. ( 4 ) ELABORATE argument had been addressed on the implead petition by learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 5 ) EVEN at the outset, I may point out that criminal offence of a cognizable nature is construed as a crime against social interest of the community at large and that perhaps is the reason for the State to take all steps necessary for bringing the person, who has acted against the social interests of the community to book, not withstanding the fact that the person aggrieved is not interested in pursuing the matter further. It is perhaps on the score of this principle, administration of criminal justice system is founded upon. ( 6 ) THE code has given the recognition to such a sanguine principle, by indicating in various provisions, such as sections 2 (u), 24, 25, 225, 301 and 302. A survey of these provisions does indicate appointment of a Public Prosecutor either by the State or by the Centre to be in charge of the prosecution in respect of the cases filed before courts and conduct prosecution there for. A survey of these provisions does indicate appointment of a Public Prosecutor either by the State or by the Centre to be in charge of the prosecution in respect of the cases filed before courts and conduct prosecution there for. This apart, in certain contingencies and circumstances, a police officer of a specified rank, who is not in charge of an investigation, is also permitted to conduct the case. In none of the provisions, as referred to above, there is any mention as to allowing a private party to engage a counsel of his choice so as to conduct the prosecution. ( 7 ) SECTION 225 specifically mandates that a prosecution before a Court of Session shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. As such, a prosecution conducted by a counsel engaged in brief by a complainant and not by the Public Prosecutor is in violation of the express and mandatory provisions adumbrated therefore. It is also clear from sections 24 and 301 of the Code that a pleader privately engaged cannot plead, although he can act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. Section 2 (u) read with section 301 of the code leads to the inevitable conclusion that any person engaged in brief by a private person to instruct the prosecutor can only so instruct and act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor and the prosecution shall be conducted by the Public Prosecutor himself. If the Public Prosecutor is disabled and sick and is unable to carry on his business, it would be his plain duty to appoint a suitable person to act as Public Prosecutor for the case. It is extremely undesirable and quite improper that a Public Prosecutor should be allowed to sit back handing over the conduct of the case to a counsel, however eminent he may be briefed by the complainant in the case, on the salutary principle that criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wreaking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person, who according to that party, had caused injury to it. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been stated above it goes without saying that the implead petition deserves outright dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Implead petition dismissed.