Judgment 1. In all these criminal miscellaneous petitions in the unnumbered criminal revision petitions, the question of law involved is one and the same, hence, all the petitions were heard together and common order is being passed. 2. The petitions have been filed by the third parties in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13036 of 2008, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13038 of 2008, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13040 of 2008, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13042 of 2008, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13044 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, seeking an order to accept the cause title of the petitioners, whereby permitting the third parties, to maintain criminal revision petitions against the order of discharge passed by the Court below. 3. According to the petitioners, they have filed the unnumbered criminal revision petitions against the impugned orders passed by the Court below and in the respective criminal miscellaneous petitions, they have sought orders to accept the cause title, substituting their names as petitioners, though they were third parties to the criminal cases, wherein discharge was recorded by the Court below. 4. It is not in dispute that there is no revision preferred by the State, the complainant in the respective cases. Similarly, the de facto-complainant, who set the law into motion has also not preferred any revision against the order of discharge recorded by the Courts below discharging the accused. However, the petitioners herein, third parties to the criminal case, have come forward with these petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 5. The main point for determination is whether the third parties can maintain the criminal revision petitions against the order of discharge passed in favour of the accused by the Court below. 6. It is seen that M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13036 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Arumugam, an Advocate, Salem, who is a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A6 and A7, seeking an order to accept the cause title substituting him as petitioner in the unnumbered revision petition. R.C. SR. No. 13036 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Arumugam, an Advocate, Salem, who is a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A6 and A7, seeking an order to accept the cause title substituting him as petitioner in the unnumbered revision petition. As per the order, dated 11. 2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1964 of 2006 in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the accused were discharged from the case, which was pending before the Court below. 7. Similarly, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13038 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Arumugam, Advocate, Salem, a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A5, seeking an order to accept the cause title substituting him as petitioner in the unnumbered revision petition. As per the order, dated 11. 2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 531 of 2005 in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the accused was discharged from the case, which was pending before the Court below. 8. M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13040 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Arumugam, Advocate, Salem, a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A4, seeking an order to accept the cause title substituting him as petitioner in the revision petition. As per the order, dated 11. 2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 571 of 2005 in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the accused was discharged from the case, which was pending before the Court below. 9. M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13042 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Arumugam, Advocate, Salem, a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A2 and A3, seeking an order to accept the cause title, substituting him as petitioner in the revision petition. As per the order, dated 11. 2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 570 of 2005 in Spl. J.M. Arumugam, Advocate, Salem, a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A2 and A3, seeking an order to accept the cause title, substituting him as petitioner in the revision petition. As per the order, dated 11. 2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 570 of 2005 in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the accused were discharged from the case, which was pending before the Court below. 10. M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13044 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Arumugam, Advocate, Salem, a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A1, seeking an order to accept the cause title substituting him as petitioner. As per the order, dated 11. 2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 885 of 2005 in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the accused was discharged from the case, which was pending before the Court below. 11. Similarly, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner, one Mr. M. Govindan, an Advocate, Madurai, a third party to the criminal case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against A1, seeking an order to accept the cause title, stating him as petitioner. As per the order, dated 22. 2007 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1674 of 2006 in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 2004 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Vellore, the accused was discharged from the case, which was pending before the Court below. 12. The petitioners in Crl. R.C. SR. Nos. 13036 of 2008, 13038 of 2008, 13040 of 2008, 13042 of 2008 and 13044 of 2008, Mr. J.M. Arumugam is a practicing Advocate at Salem and the petitioner in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008, Mr. M. Govindan is a practicing Advocate at Madurai. 13. Learned counsel, Mr. S. Jayakumar appeared for both the petitioners, third parties in the cases relating to the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore respectively submitted that the first respondent had registered the case in Spl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008, Mr. M. Govindan is a practicing Advocate at Madurai. 13. Learned counsel, Mr. S. Jayakumar appeared for both the petitioners, third parties in the cases relating to the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore respectively submitted that the first respondent had registered the case in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 against the accused 1 to 7, who are arrayed as respondents in the unnumbered revision petitions, other than the first respondent. The first respondent is the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Salem and State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, City Special Unit, Chennai, respectively in the revision petitions. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents/accused have committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 IPC. The case in Special C.C. No. 1 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore was registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 IPC against the second respondent and others on the allegation of acquisition and possession of property, disproportionate to known sources of their income. 15. As per impugned order, dated 11. 2008, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the designated Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, was pleased to discharge the respondents/accused in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004. The first respondent has not preferred any revision petition against the said common order passed by the trial Court discharging the accused 1 to 7 in the case in Crl. M.P. Nos. 1964 of 2006, 531 of 2005, 571 of 2005, 570 of 2005 and 885 of 2005 in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004. 16. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioner filed copy application on 13. 2007 and filed Crl. M.P. No. 1116 of 2007 before the trial Court and obtained the discharge order dated 11. 2005 and preferred unnumbered criminal revision against the impugned order of discharged passed by the court below. As the petitioner is not a party in the criminal proceedings pending in Spl. 2007 and filed Crl. M.P. No. 1116 of 2007 before the trial Court and obtained the discharge order dated 11. 2005 and preferred unnumbered criminal revision against the impugned order of discharged passed by the court below. As the petitioner is not a party in the criminal proceedings pending in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 on the file of the Court below, he has sought an order to accept the cause title substituting him as petitioner in the criminal revision. According to the learned counsel, though the prayer is to accept the cause title, the petitioner has sought permission to prosecute the criminal revision, in spite of the fact that he was not a party to the criminal case pending before the trial Court. Similarly, in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008, the petitioner was not a party to the criminal proceeding, that was pending before the trial Court, now (sic) he filed the unnumbered revision petition, since the Court below, namely, Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore has discharged the second respondent/accused by order, dated 23. 2007. The notice was served on the respondents. At this stage, the maintainability of the petition has to be decided by this Court, as the same has been questioned by the respondent herein. 17. Mr. S. Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, first respondent herein submitted his arguments that the petitions are not legally maintainable and according to him, it is a clear abuse of process of the Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitions are legally maintainable and that they are entitled to get an order for accepting the cause title. 18. The second respondent, Mr. S. Arumugam, in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13044 of 2008 and Mr. D. Durai Murugan, the second respondent in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008 are former Ministers of the State Government of Tamil Nadu on the date of filing the complaint and at present, they are serving as the Ministers of the State Government of Tamil Nadu, which is not in dispute. The second and third respondent in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13036 of 2008, the second respondent in Crl.R.C. SR. No. 13038 of 2008 the second respondent in Crl. R.C. SR. The second and third respondent in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13036 of 2008, the second respondent in Crl.R.C. SR. No. 13038 of 2008 the second respondent in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13040 of 2008, the respondents 2 and 3 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13042 of 2008 are family members of the second respondent in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13044 of 2008. 19. In all the unnumbered criminal revision petitions, the first, respondent is the State. It is an admitted fact that the case in Spl. C.C. No. 14 of 2004 was registered by the first respondent on the complaint given by one Thiru. Duraimuguan, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 IPC, as per the FIR. In the FIR, the period of occurrence of the offence is stated between 15. 1996 to 15. 2001. 20. The case in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 2004 was registered under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 IPC as per the FIR. 21. It is seen from the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, that the alleged offence is stated under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 IPC. However, Section 109 IPC reads as follows: “109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment – Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” 22. It is a settled proposition of law that independently, under Section 109 IPC, no charge could be filed, however, in the FIR and charge sheet, it is shown as an independent offence by the complainant. The point for consideration in this miscellaneous petitions, relating to the unnumbered criminal revision petitions is whether a third party to the criminal proceeding can maintain a revision under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of discharge recorded by the Court below. 23. Mr. B. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 1) Mr. J.M. Arumugam and 2) Mr. 23. Mr. B. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 1) Mr. J.M. Arumugam and 2) Mr. M. Govindan, submitted that the petitioners are practicing Advocates at Salem and Madurai respectively. According to him, the petitioners being practicing Advocates, interested in corruption free Government have locus standi to refer the revisions. In support of the contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited the following decisions: 1. Cricket Assn. of Bengal. V. State of W.B. AIR 1971 SC 1925 : (1971) SCC (Cr) 446 2. Pratap v. State of U.P. AIR 1973 SC 786 : (1973) SCC (Cr) 496 3. Nadir Khan v. State AIR 1976 SC 2205 : (1975) 2 SCC 406 : (1975) SCC (Cr) 622 : (1977) 1 MLJ (Crl) 361 4. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak AIR 1984 SC 718 : (1984) SCC (Cr) 277 5. Shoe Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 877 : (1987) SCC (Cr) 82 6. Krishnan v. Krishnaveni AIR 1997 SC AIR 1987 SC 987 : (1997) SCC (Cr) 544 : 1997 Crl. L.J. 1519. 7. R. Rathinam v. State AIR 2000 SC 1851 : (2000) SCC (Cr) 958 8. K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police (2004) 1 MLJ (Crl) 89 : 2003 AIR SCW 6468 9. K. Pandurangan v. S.S.R. Velusamy AIR 2003 SC 3318 : (2004) SCC (Cr) 48 : 2003 Crl. L.J. 4964 10. Purushottam Vijay v. State 1982 Crl. L.J. 243 11. Mohammed v. State of Kerala 1982 Crl. L.J. 1120 12. J.M. Arumugam v. State (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 501 : 2008 1 L.W. (Crl) 568 13. P. Ravindran v. State (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 535 24. Mr. S. Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioners have no loco standi to maintain the criminal revision petitions. According to the Learned Additional Advocate General, the revision petitions were politically motivated. He further contended that the cases were registered during the regime of the earlier Government on political reasons, however, the Court below considered the petitions filed by the respondents/accused and discharged them under Section 239 Cr.P.C. According to him, neither by the first respondent, state, nor the da facto complainant or by any other person cited as witnesses has filed any revision, however, the present petitioners, due to political reasons have come forward with these unnumbered petitions without any locus standi. 25. Per contra, Mr. 25. Per contra, Mr. S. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is a public interested matter and the petitioners being the members of the Bar and also the citizens of this if country have locus standi to file the revision petition and further submitted that the Additional Advocate General cannot argue on behalf of the other respondents. According to the learned counsel, as the State was the complainant before the trial Court, in the absence of preferring any revision against the order of discharge, learned Additional Advocate General should support the case of the petitioners. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Additional Advocate General cannot advance his arguments against these unnumbered revision petitions being filed. 26. It is in the admission stage of the unnumbered revision petitions and further, the petitioners herein were not parties to the criminal proceedings pending before the Court below. While filing these unnumbered criminal revision petitions, the petitioners herein have filed these miscellaneous petitions to accept the cause title, whereby seeking permission to substitute themselves and proceed with the criminal proceedings, that was ended in discharge of the accused on 11. 2006 and 22. 2007 respectively by the orders of the Courts below. 27. As it is a question of law, even if the State is not a party, the Court can seek the opinion or the legal issue from the Additional Advocate General or any other counsel, which is a settled proposition of law, since an Advocate is basically a Court Officer to assist the Court. 28. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in criminal case, ended in discharge, third party would have not locus standi to maintain a revision, against the discharge and that permitting any third party to step into the shoes of the State or the de facto complainant would open the flood gate, as every one would file revision for wrecking their private vengeance or achieving political vendetta. 29. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court, a third party has no locus standi to prefer revision against discharge recorded by any Court. Here in the instant case, the petitioners were neither the complainant, state, nor the de facto complainant or any prosecution witnesses and therefore, as third parties to the criminal proceedings, they cannot maintain the revision petitions. Here in the instant case, the petitioners were neither the complainant, state, nor the de facto complainant or any prosecution witnesses and therefore, as third parties to the criminal proceedings, they cannot maintain the revision petitions. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on the following decisions: 1. Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 911 : (1966) 1 MLJ (Cri.) 589 2. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1991 (3) SCC (Cri) 933 3. Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 280 : (1992) 4 SCC 653 : (1993) 1 MLJ (Crl) 222 4. Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. B.C.I. AIR 1995 SC 691 : (1995) 1 SCC 732 5. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi) v. C.B.I. and Others 6. Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 2001 SC 1739 : (2001) SCC (Cr) 806 7. P. Velusamy Gounder v. Ramakrishnan 6 Others (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 709 : 2006 2 L.W. (Crl) 750 8. Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan (VIII) v. Union of India 2006 (3) SCC (Cr) 125 : (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1946 30. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision, P. Ravindran v. State (supra), whereby this Court has held that a third party is entitled to receive certified copies of certain documents from the trial Court, in view of the Right to Information Act (22 of 2005). The aforesaid decision is nothing to do with the point for determination in the unnumbered revisions preferred against, the discharge recorded by the Court below. 31. In Pratap v. State of U.P. (supra), a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the revision preferred by the brother of the deceased in a case registered under Section 302 IPC is maintainable. In the said case, the victim is the deceased and therefore, as an aggrieved person, his brother can maintain the revision and in such circumstance, the Law does not expect that he should file a Public Interest Litigation. In the instant case, the petitioners are third parties, hence, they cannot step into the shoes of the State or the de facto complainant, in order to maintain the revision and therefore, the decision Pratap v. State of U.P. (supra) by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 32. In the instant case, the petitioners are third parties, hence, they cannot step into the shoes of the State or the de facto complainant, in order to maintain the revision and therefore, the decision Pratap v. State of U.P. (supra) by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by its Constitution Bench decision, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (supra), has held that private complaint in respect of offences committed by public servant is maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held as follows: “35. Having examined the matter from all the different angles, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached both by the learned special Judge and Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that a private complaint filed by the complainant was clearly maintainable and that the cognizance was properly taken, is correct. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.” From the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that a private complaint in respect of offences committed by any public servant is legally maintainable. However, the said decision is not applicable to the present case on hand, since in the instant case, already the complaint was given by the de facto complainant against the respondents/accused and based on which, the State itself had prosecuted the respondents/accused. Considering the materials and the arguments advanced, by both sides, the Court below has recorded discharge. In such circumstances, can a third party has any right to subrogation, whereby stepping into the shoes of the de facto complainant or the State is the question of law to be decided in these revisions. 33. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “25. It is most relevant, to note that none of the appellants before this Court save the Union of India and CBI is connected in any way with the present criminal proceeding initiated on the strength of the first information report, which is now sought to be quashed by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary. Although in the FIR, the names of three accused are specifically mentioned none of them has been impleaded as a respondent to these proceedings by any one of the appellants. Even Mr. H.S. Chowdhary. Although in the FIR, the names of three accused are specifically mentioned none of them has been impleaded as a respondent to these proceedings by any one of the appellants. Even Mr. Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s. A.B. Bofors, who was impleaded as a pro forma respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1991 has been given up by the Solicitor General. Therefore, under these circumstances, one should not lose sight of the significant fact that in case this Court pronounces its final opinion or conclusions on the issues other than the general issues raised by the appellants as public interest litigants, without hearing the really effected person/persons, such opinion or conclusions may, in future, in case the investigation culminates in filing a final report become detrimental and prejudicial to the indicated accused persons who would be totally deprived of challenging such opinion or conclusions of this Apex Court, even if they happen to come in possession of some valuable material to canvass the correctness of such opinion or conclusions and consequently their vested legal right to defend their case in their own way would be completely nullified by the verdict now sought to be obtained by these public interest litigants. 26. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.: 34. In Takur Ram v. State of Bihar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a case being proceeded on a police report, a private party has no locus standi to proceed further, when there is no revision preferred by the State. The de facto complainant is the author of the complaint given before the police. Based on the complaint, the Sate on the principle of criminal jurisprudence that a crime is an act against the society had initiated the criminal proceedings before the Courts below having jurisdiction. In the instant case, in fact, a case was registered by the first-respondent, State, while the respondent in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. Based on the complaint, the Sate on the principle of criminal jurisprudence that a crime is an act against the society had initiated the criminal proceedings before the Courts below having jurisdiction. In the instant case, in fact, a case was registered by the first-respondent, State, while the respondent in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 13044 of 2008 and the respondent in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Crl. R.C. SR. No. 48000 of 2008 were Ex-Ministers and also in the opposition party on the date of filing of the petition. The case was taken on file by the Court below. During the pendency of the case, the respondents, other than the first respondent, State had filed petitions for discharge before the Court below. The Court below considering the materials available on record and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, passed the impugned orders discharging the respondents/accused. 35. In Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “Therefore, neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statue is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. It is difficult to accept the contention that such a public interest litigation commenced by a leader of a recognised political party who has a genuine interest in the future of the convicts should be entertained. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians.” 36. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “2…. It is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reasons of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief.” 37. In Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” (VIII) v. Union of India (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is a criminal litigation exclusively between respondents 4 and 5 and the state. It is also important to note that in a case of this nature nobody else has got any right to interfere especially by way of public interest litigation or else such public interest litigation would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to the accused by denying them a fair trial. This unnecessary interference in the criminal case may cause, sometimes damage to the prosecution case also. In any view of the matter, this sort of interference in the criminal prosecution would only deny a fair trial to the accused.” 38. In the miscellaneous petitions, the petitioners sought a prayer to accept the cause title. As per P. Ramantha Aiyer, Law Lexicon, Second Edition, the term “Subrogation” is substitution of one person in place of another, with reference to lawful demand or right. Subrogation is nothing but stepping into the shoes of another, in civil cases, substitution of one creditor for another by operation of law is legally possible. As per Law of Indemnity, after making payment to the victim in a motor accident case, by way of subrogation, the insurance company can step into the shoes of the person for whom it was asked to pay the damages. Similarly, in the case of consignment, after making payment, the insurance company can exercise the right of subrogation, as per law. However, as per criminal jurisprudence, the State, being the complainant can prefer revision against an order of discharge. Similarly, a de facto complainant can also prefer revision against discharge or acquittal recorded by the Court below. 39. In the instant case, the petitioners are only third parties, they are neither the complainant, nor the de facto complainant. However, as per criminal jurisprudence, the State, being the complainant can prefer revision against an order of discharge. Similarly, a de facto complainant can also prefer revision against discharge or acquittal recorded by the Court below. 39. In the instant case, the petitioners are only third parties, they are neither the complainant, nor the de facto complainant. It is not in dispute that the author or a complaint is only the de facto complainant, who set the law into motion. A third party cannot have any right of subrogation. 40. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited number of decisions, however, the decisions are not applicable to the fact and circumstances of this case. One can file a writ petition, as a Public Interest Litigation and such pro bono publico of the person cannot be questioned, in other words, the Court need not go into the question of locus standi of the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation. Here in the instant case, the petitioners are not the de facto complainant or the authors of the criminal complaint, who had set the law into motion, in order to maintain the criminal revision petition. 41. It is a well settled proposition of law that a criminal proceeding cannot be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance either on political reasons or otherwise. Had the order of discharge was passed against law, the State being the complainant could have preferred the revision against, the impugned orders. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any revision against the order of discharge recorded by the Court below. The petitioners, who were neither the complainant nor the de facto complainant or prosecution witness in the criminal case, to treat them as aggrieved persons. 42. Legal heirs of the creditors/complainant in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can file a petition to accept the cause titled, based on their substituting right as legal heir. However, third parties cannot claim such rights of subrogation and seek an order of substitute them as petitioners. Hence, I am of the view that the relief sought for by the third parties, by filing the miscellaneous petitions to accept the cause title is against the criminal law, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 43. However, third parties cannot claim such rights of subrogation and seek an order of substitute them as petitioners. Hence, I am of the view that the relief sought for by the third parties, by filing the miscellaneous petitions to accept the cause title is against the criminal law, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 43. In the light of various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that third parties to a criminal proceeding are not legally entitled to maintain criminal revisions against discharge or acquittal recorded by the trial Court. By seeking an order to accept the cause title, the third parties cannot substitute themselves in the criminal proceedings, by way of subrogation, as they cannot step into the shoes of the State or the de facto complainant. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitions are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected unnumbered revision petitions are ordered to be rejected. Petitions dismissed.