ORDER 1. Petitioner has come to this Court assailing orders dated 21.1.2011 and 30.11.2011. Insofar as order dated 21.1.11 is concerned, present petition filed on19/20.12.11 is not maintainable. Insofar as order dated 30.11.11 is concerned, the trial Court has passed a detailed order regarding locus of the present petitioner to conduct the prosecution in this case which is lodged by the police under S. 173 Cr.P.C. The complainant is the son of the petitioner. He has also been allowed to assist the prosecution in case if he so wants but he is not coming to the Court and petitioner wants to take his place. 2. Sec. 302 Cr.P.C. for the sake of reference is reproduced hereunder : “S.302–Permission to conduct prosecution – (1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate-General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission; Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted. (2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader” 3. It will be also relevant to take note of s. 301 Cr.P.C. which reads as under : “S. 301 Appearance by Public Prosecutors : (1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. (2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.” 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sections goes to show that prosecution has to be conducted in a criminal case only through Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) and if in case any private person wants to help prosecution he can do so only with the permission of the Court. 5. As already observed Ramandeep Singh is the son of petitioner who is complainant had already been granted permission to assist the prosecution. 6. Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in J.K.International Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others (2001) 3 SCC 462 . Said judgment also basically refers to Section 302 Cr.P.C.as quoted above. This judgment only permits to assist the prosecutor but that is again subject to Section 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. Petitioner who is the father of the complainant filed an application to permit him to prosecute the respondent, in a case which has been initiated by the report filed by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., after investigation, on the complaint filed by the son of the petitioner Ramandeep Singh. At one stage, the Court permitted Shri Ramandeep Singh to assist the prosecutor in view of the provisions under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. Ramandeep Singh never appeared for prosecuting the case. Thus, the petitioner thought it proper to conduct the prosecution and therefore he filed and application under Sections 301 and 302 of Cr.P.C. to permit him to prosecute the respondent. At one stage, the Court permitted the petitioner also to assist the prosecution, but probably looking to his conduct during the course of trial, the Court vide order dated November 30, 2011 held that the petitioner had no locus standi to prosecute the respondent. At one stage, the Court permitted the petitioner also to assist the prosecution, but probably looking to his conduct during the course of trial, the Court vide order dated November 30, 2011 held that the petitioner had no locus standi to prosecute the respondent. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Magistrate are reproduced hereunder:- Jh ujsUnz iwf.kZ;k }kjk vius tokc ds leFkZu esa ,d U;k; n`“Vkar ts-ds- baVjus’kuy fo:) ,u-lh-Vh fnYyh jkT; ,oa vU; ¼2001½ 3 ,l ,l lh 462 is’k fd;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls Qfj;knh dks vfHk;kstu ds lapkyu dh vuqefr iznku dh tk ldrh ,oa vU; dksbZ O;fDr tks mlesa fgr j[krk gks U;k;ky; ls vuqefr izkIr dj vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu dj ldrk gSA ijarq mDr U;k; n`“Vkar ds rF; bl izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs D;ksafd Jh ujsUnz flag iwf.kZ;k }kjk vfHk;kstu dks lapkfyr djus dh vuqefr iznku ugha dh xbZ gSS ,oa jeunhi dks Hkh vfHk;kstu dh lgk;rk djus dh vuqefr iznku dh xbZ gSA vr% vkjksih dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 7. The petitioner made submissions that in the present case, there was no public prosecutor attached to the Court concerned and infact the Public Prosecutor was not taking any steps for prosecuting the respondent. 8. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner, a report was called from the Police. The police has denied the suggestions of the petitioner. In fact an affidavit has been filed of the prosecutor which shows that he is continuing to prosecute on each and every date of hearing. Despite that the petitioner submitted that the public prosecutor did not take any requisite steps and he is not assisting the case of the State in prosecuting the respondent properly. 9. The issue as to what extent the private person who is aggrieved by a crime can assist the prosecution or conduct the prosecution. This issue has been dealt with by the Rajasthan High Court at length in a judgment delivered in the case of Bhopal Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cri.L.J.912. While dealing with the issue, the Court taking note of the submissions made by the respondent in that case who was private party and contented that “in a spoil system, the Public Prosecutors are mostly incompetent as they are appointed by the Government on party line. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cri.L.J.912. While dealing with the issue, the Court taking note of the submissions made by the respondent in that case who was private party and contented that “in a spoil system, the Public Prosecutors are mostly incompetent as they are appointed by the Government on party line. It is also submitted that mostly, the public prosecutors do not function with requisite detachment and they are influenced by the politicians and police officers and they are also susceptible to misuse and corruption. It is also submitted that any person, who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused persons has inherent right to prosecute such accused persons through a competent lawyer of his choice. It is, thus, submitted that a right of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to prosecute the accused at his hand, when a person has suffered any loss or injury. Sections 225, 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which completely deprives a complainant to prosecute the accused, at whose hand he has suffered any loss or injury, are unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 10. Taking note of the provisions contained in Section 24 of Cr.P.C., which deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutor and provisions contained under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. as also making a distinction between the rights of a private person in Civil case and in criminal proceedings, the learned Judge made the following observations:- “8. Thus, in all prosecutions, the State is the prosecutor and a proceeding is always treated as proceeding between the State and he accused. The anxiety of the State is to secure peace and security and has a right to prosecute. The complainant has no independent right to have guilty person punished. It is felt necessary in the larger public interest to save the people from prosecution by a private party. Once the offence is committed, it is not against an individual but is against the entire Society. Thus, of the outcome of a trial, it is not only the complainant, who is interested but it is the public at large, who is concerned. Once the offence is committed, it is not against an individual but is against the entire Society. Thus, of the outcome of a trial, it is not only the complainant, who is interested but it is the public at large, who is concerned. It has taken human civilisation centuries to reach this stage when the modern State has come to acquire a monopoly to adjudicate and use force when fights between the private individuals take place. This is why justice is represented by scales of sword. The society has realised that the privilege of the prosecution should be of the State alone because it is neutral interceptor as it never loses and never wins. The Court calls for exercise and hence the conduct of the prosecution is entrusted to the prosecutors appointed by the State Govt. This will save innocent persons from vexatious prosecution and also harassment during the trial. Complainant has also been given limited right to speak during trial by way of submitting written arguments under section 301(2) and assist the public prosecutor through private counsel with permission of the Court if the facts so permit under Section 302 CrPC. Thus, the foundation of Sections 225, 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a well reasoned public policy. A balance is struck between public interest and private interest that while keeping the Management of the prosecution with public prosecutor, provision is made to take care of complainant’s view, on legal and factual aspect. Such a provision cannot be struck down simply because somebody thinks that the appointment of public prosecutors is not on the basis of merit or they are susceptible to misuse and corruption. If in a individual case, there is any grievance against the public prosecutor, the appropriate remedy is to lodge a complaint against him, before the appropriate authority.” 11. The aforesaid judgment squarely lays down the public policy as also law on the subject and the limited right given by the legislature to private person, who in the present case, may also include the petitioner being one of the aggrieved person. However, such right will have to be restricted to provisions contained under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. i.e.only to assist the prosecution and at the most to file written submissions if the evidence is collected in the trial. However, such right will have to be restricted to provisions contained under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. i.e.only to assist the prosecution and at the most to file written submissions if the evidence is collected in the trial. To that extent, even though permission was granted to the complainant, the son of the petitioner, but as the petitioner feels that his son is not in a position to assist the prosecution and wish for permitting him to be substituted in place of his son for the purpose of assisting the prosecutor, he can move an application after obtaining attorney from the son to assist the prosecution. If such an application is moved, the trial Court would consider the same, but in the light of the observations made above. 12. With this liberty, the present petition is disposed of. The record of the trial Court be sent forthwith so that Court can proceed further in the matter. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 17.04.2012 on which date the trial Court will proceed in the matter in accordance with law and will try to expedite the prosecution. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned alongwith record.