ORDER : P. Bhavadasan, J. The petitioner styling himself as an investigative journalist, also claiming to be the Chief Editor of Crimes Magazine and who proclaims that he is a champion of public interest, approached the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha to get himself impleaded in a revision filed by a complainant against the order rejecting her complaint. The court found that the petitioner has no locus standi. 2. The matter pertains to what now popularly known as 'Suryanelli sex scandal case'. In these proceedings, it is the involvement of the sixth respondent herein which is in issue. 3. To understand the present controversy, it is absolutely necessary to refer to some basic facts. A girl aged below 16 at the relevant time was taken from place to place and she was sexually assaulted. On the complaint filed, crime was registered and after investigation final report was laid. There were several accused in the case. Respondents 3 to 5 were also accused in the said case. The third respondent herein had initially absconded and the case against him was split up. The case against others were taken on file by the Sessions Court as S.C. 187 of 1999. Later, on the apprehension of the third respondent herein, the case against him was renumbered as S.C. 241 of 2001 and both the cases went for trial. The trial court found all the accused guilty. The matter was carried in appeal before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all the persons. 4. In the meanwhile, finding that the police initially investigating the crime had exonerated the sixth respondent in this petition, the victim in the case had filed Crl.M.P. 1436 of 2009 before the JFCM Court, Peermade accusing the sixth respondent herein of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 368, 373, 376, 392 and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and after following the necessary procedures, the case was taken on file as C.P. 21 of 1999 and process was issued to the sixth respondent herein. He entered appearance and he attempted to have the proceedings quashed, which failed. After committal of the case, the Sessions Court took the case on file as S.C. 413 of 2006. He entered appearance and he attempted to have the proceedings quashed, which failed. After committal of the case, the Sessions Court took the case on file as S.C. 413 of 2006. Even though the sixth respondent had challenged the dismissal of his petition to quash the proceedings before the Apex Court, the Apex Court, confirming the dismissal of this court, granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before the Sessions Court. Consequently, the sixth respondent moved for discharge. The Sessions Court concerned dismissed the application. The matter was carried before this Court and this Court by order dated 4.4.2007 in Crl.R.P. No. 3921 of 2006 accepted the plea of the sixth respondent and discharged him. The State challenged the discharge before the Apex Court, but without success. 5. Six years thereafter based on a blabbing by the third respondent herein which was published in news papers, the first respondent herein filed Crl.M.P. 1134 of 2013 before JFCM-II, Peermade seeking to have the proceedings initiated against the sixth respondent almost on the very same set of allegations except that she also pleaded that she received new information and materials regarding the involvement of the sixth respondent and incorporation of Section 120B of I.P.C. also. 6. The learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was laid, found no fresh materials to proceed with the matter and therefore, rejected the complaint. 7. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the complainant carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha as Crl.R.P. 3 of 2013. While that matter was pending, the present petitioner filed Crl.M.P.2106 of 2013 to get himself impleaded in the proceedings. Finding that the petitioner was unable to establish his locus standi, his petition was dismissed by the revisional court. The revision by the complainant also was considered by the court below and found that there were no merits in any of the grounds raised in the revision and the revisional court came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in rejecting the complaint. 8. It is the order refusing to implead the petitioner in the proceedings and also the order confirming the rejection of the complaint that is assailed before this court in these proceedings. 9. 8. It is the order refusing to implead the petitioner in the proceedings and also the order confirming the rejection of the complaint that is assailed before this court in these proceedings. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. Nagendra Rai appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below has erred in law in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to participate in the proceedings. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the concept of locus standi is alien to criminal proceedings and it is well settled that criminal proceedings can be set in motion by any person. This fundamental principle has been overlooked and it is not a case where the petitioner had an independent issue to be resolved but he was only aiding the complainant. 10. Learned Senior Counsel went on to point out that even assuming that the locus standi of the petitioner is in doubt, still it is possible for the petitioner to point out before this court that the procedure adopted by the court below in rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant is erroneous. It is not clear, according to the learned Senior Counsel, under which provision of the Code the learned Magistrate had rejected the complaint. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it is significant to notice that the earlier discharge obtained by the sixth respondent from this Court was without notice to the complainant and therefore, strictly speaking, the order of discharge is not binding on the complainant. Even otherwise, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that a second complaint in exceptional circumstances is maintainable and this case presents an exceptional circumstance wherein new information and materials have come to light showing the involvement of the sixth respondent. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that even if this court is to hold that a revision at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable, nothing precludes this court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set right the illegality committed by JFCM-II, Peermade as confirmed by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in rejecting the complaint at the threshold itself. 11. The learned Director General of Prosecution Shri. Asif Ali contended that the concept of locus standi is not totally alien to criminal jurisprudence. It is normally said that any person can set the law in motion. 11. The learned Director General of Prosecution Shri. Asif Ali contended that the concept of locus standi is not totally alien to criminal jurisprudence. It is normally said that any person can set the law in motion. There are circumstances when the locus standi is of relevance and importance especially when certain provisions stipulate the persons who can file complaints and who can make grievance before the court. 12. The learned D.G.P. contended that the petitioner had nothing to do with the incident and his petition for impleading is not in fact one supporting the complainant, but a reading of the same would reveal that he actually wants to lead evidence regarding the discharge obtained by the sixth respondent and the list of witnesses given by him in his petition would clearly reveal the intention of the petitioner. Learned D.G.P. contended that in fact a reading of the petition filed before the court below would show that it amounts to contempt of court and the list of witnesses shown in the petition will clearly indicate that the intention of the petitioner is something else. 13. The learned D.G.P. also contended that it is significant to notice that the complainant in the complaint also opposed the petitioner before this court coming on record. Further, it is pointed out that it is inconceivable in law that another person can intervene in a complaint filed by a person and seek to have independent enquiry as regards the grievance voiced in his complaint unconnected with the issue agitated in the complaint. The position is made still worse when the original complainant opposes the person concerned coming on record. It was therefore pointed out that the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha was perfectly justified in dismissing the impleading petition filed by the petitioner. 14. As regards the merits of the dismissal of the petition filed by the complainant also, learned D.G.P. contended that there are no grounds to interfere. It was also contended that at any rate, no interference is called for at the behest of the person who has no locus standi to agitate the issue and whether this court could exercise its suo motu power in revision or its inherent power is a different matter. If the complainant was really aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court, she could have agitated the matter further. She had not done it so far. If the complainant was really aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court, she could have agitated the matter further. She had not done it so far. According to the learned D.G.P. there is no patent illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the courts below in rejecting the complaint filed by the first respondent herein. The learned D.G.P. also emphasized that there has to be a quietus to the issue as far as this respondent is concerned because it is almost six years after the conviction in the case that the present complaint has been laid. Several highly placed police officers at different levels had occasion to investigate into the involvement of the sixth respondent in the crime and all of them found that he had no role in the crime. A private complaint was filed by the victim which culminated in the discharge of the sixth respondent by this Court and affirmed by Apex Court. Even though it is claimed that new materials have been obtained, a perusal of the complaint would show that the only new material, on which reliance is placed by the complainant, is a news paper report about the involvement of the sixth respondent. That is too thin an item of material to proceed with the complaint. The learned D.G.P. also contended that the complaint in this case cannot ignore the discharge order and if she is aggrieved by the said order, she has to take appropriate proceedings known to law. 15. The learned D.G.P. did not dispute the proposition that under exceptional and certain circumstances a second complaint is maintainable. But according to the learned D.G.P., no such circumstance exists in the present case. 16. As rightly pointed out by the learned D.G.P. if it is found that the petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the matter, then it may not be necessary for this court to go into the merits of the order passed by the court below. As rightly noticed by the learned D.G.P. if the complainant is aggrieved by the order of the courts below rejecting her complaint, it is for her to agitate the matter and this court need not take upon itself the onerous duty of scrutinizing the legality, regularity or propriety of the order passed when the complainant has no grievance regarding the same. The matter may be different if the revision had been filed by the complainant. 17. It is rather unknown in criminal law that a person can claim himself to get impleaded in the proceedings at the revisional stage. While it is usually said that the locus standi concept as such may not be strictly applicable in criminal proceedings since it is accepted principle that criminal law can be set into motion by any person, still the concept may not be altogether be irrelevant in certain circumstances. 18. In the case on hand, it must be remembered that this is the second complaint laid by the complainant against the same person. It is also significant to notice that the other persons arrayed as respondents in the complaint are convicted persons by the trial court and the appeal against conviction is presently being heard by a Bench of this Court. 19. As pointed out by the learned D.G.P., on going through the complaint, the only material now relied on by the complainant is the statement alleged to have been made by the third respondent herein in a press conference wherein he blurted out the involvement of the sixth respondent herein in the incident that took place in the Rest House at Kumili. The witnesses shown in the private complaint are two employees of the Mathrubhoomi Television channel. Except for this statement alleged to have been made by the third respondent herein, there is no other material based on which the second complaint has been laid. Whether that by itself is sufficient is a different matter. 20. Coming back to the locus standi of the petitioner, even though under all circumstances locus standi may not be relevant, but it is not always so. In the case of the present nature, it certainly has relevance. 21. It is significant to notice that when the petitioner sought to get himself impleaded in the revisional proceedings, that was opposed by the complainant herself. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the petition for impleadment, it is seen that the petitioner is more concerned with the order of discharge of the sixth respondent herein and which was confirmed by the Apex Court rather than the involvement of the sixth respondent in the incident. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the petition for impleadment, it is seen that the petitioner is more concerned with the order of discharge of the sixth respondent herein and which was confirmed by the Apex Court rather than the involvement of the sixth respondent in the incident. A major portion of the impleading petition is devoted to criticize various officers, Judges in the High Court and the Supreme Court attributing motives to them and not strictly concerned about the victim or her cause. The intention of the petitioner becomes very evident on going through the affidavit filed in support of the petition for impleadment. On going through the affidavit, there is nothing to show that he seeks to furnish further proof of involvement of the sixth respondent in support of the complainant's case. But he wants something else to be done. It is not possible to understand that how in a complaint filed by the victim, another person could get himself impleaded and have evidence adduced regarding a matter which is totally alien to the subject matter of the complaint. 22. Whether the earlier discharge order passed by this court is binding on the complainant or not need not be considered in this proceedings, for, the complainant is not before this court. It is not for the petitioner to agitate her cause as the complainant has adequate remedies of her own. 23. True, a second complaint may be maintainable in certain circumstances. But the Sessions court while exercising its power of revision had considered the matter in considerable detail and put in the words of the Sessions court "the present complaint is only old wine in a new bottle". May be that the order of the JFCM court concerned may not be a very happy one. But, the Sessions court, while exercising its power of revision, had considered the aspect from all angle and found the rejection to be proper and correct. It cannot be said that the petitioner could intermeddle in the manner in which he has chosen to do, especially when his intentions are evident from the affidavit and the witnesses he wishes to examine in support of his allegations. It cannot be said that the petitioner could intermeddle in the manner in which he has chosen to do, especially when his intentions are evident from the affidavit and the witnesses he wishes to examine in support of his allegations. It is significant to note that none of the witnesses who are sought to be examined has anything to do with the act complained against the sixth respondent and they are sought to be examined to prove that the discharge was not proper. 24. Whether an independent complaint by the petitioner regarding the involvement of the sixth respondent is maintainable or not is a different question altogether. However, in the light of the averments contained in the affidavit and the purpose for which the impleadment is sought, it is very clear that it is not to advance the case of the complainant but to achieve something else, to be precise, cheap publicity at the expense of the complainant. The learned D.G.P. may be to a certain extent correct that the allegations in fact amount to contempt of court. However, it is not necessary to consider that matter further. Suffice is to say that the court below was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim for participation by the petitioner in the proceedings. 25. This court can certainly invoke its inherent power to set right any illegality, irregularity or impropriety found in the orders of the courts below. But that should be sparingly used and the parameters for exercising such powers are well settled. Whatever that be, it is not necessary for this court in this petition to examine the illegality, irregularity or impropriety of the orders passed by the courts below especially when the complainant has remedy against the order. 26. The inherent power of this court is not to be exercised in a petition which is misconceived, ill-advised and is a typical example of gross abuse of the process of court. The petition intended for personal gains though styled as in public interest deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, this court restrains itself from doing so considering the judicial propriety and self restraint the court needs to exercise though the petition is frivolous and vexatious. This petition is without merits and it is dismissed.