Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 762 (BOM)

Uttam Valujibhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra

2012-04-10

ABHAY M.THIPSAY

body2012
Order Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing forth. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 12/9/2011 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate 41st Court, Shindewadi, in Case No.12/PW of 2010. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the petitioner to be impleaded in the said case pending before the said Magistrate. Respondent No.2 is an accused in the said case. He is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. The petitioner made an application before the Magistrate titled as 'application for intervention'. Prayers made in the application were as follows: "(a) The applicant be permitted to intervene in the present proceeding as the Victim. (b) Any other just and equitable order in the interest of justice be passed." 4. The Magistrate observed that the petitioner was claiming to be a 'victim' and doubted the correctness of this claim by referring to the provisions of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate observed that the petitioner claimed to have made a complaint with the police on the basis of which the offence in question had been registered and that, therefore, he wanted to intervene in the criminal case pending before the Magistrate. The Magistrate observed, rightly in my opinion, that the petitioner could not be joined as a 'witness' since the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide for any such procedure. The Magistrate also observed that if the evidence of the petitioner would be found necessary, the court would have every power to summon and examine him The Magistrate also observed that no evidence was adduced so far in the said case and that, therefore, no opinion could be formed as to whether the petitioner's evidence was necessary for a just decision of the case in question. 5. Before this court, when questioned as to how the petitioner could be joined in the proceedings as a 'victim', it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wanted permission to 'assist the learned APP in conducting the prosecution'. If that is so, the petitioner ought to have made an application to that effect. 6. The order passed by the Magistrate is proper and legal. If that is so, the petitioner ought to have made an application to that effect. 6. The order passed by the Magistrate is proper and legal. As a matter of fact, the prayer of the petitioner for joining him as a party to the proceedings is rather absurd. 7. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.