JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2019 by which the District Magistrate has closed the proceedings initiated on the complaint of the petitioner against the sitting Gram Pradhan for the alleged embezzlement of Rs.951000/-. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the complainant challenging the order dated 3.1.2019. 4. The petitioner is only a complainant and he may be a person annoyed and cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. 5. A writ of certiorari can only be prayed for by a person who is aggrieved against an order by which any of his legal rights have been curtailed or violated. 6. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465 , Supreme Court has observed in the following manner: "Person aggrieved 9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [ AIR 1952 SC 12 ] , Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 728 ] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [ AIR 1962 SC 1044 ] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736 ] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [ (2009) 2 SCC 784 ] .] 10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [ (1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719 ] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [ (1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361 ] .) 11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai [ (2008) 5 SCC 217 : AIR 2008 SC 1289 ], a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons. 17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others." 7. 17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others." 7. This writ petition moved on behalf of the complainant is not maintainable. It is dismissed as such.