ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of applications seeking impleadment/intervention filed by Mr. Ashok Pathak in two sets of petitions, one set of petitions is filed by the accused seeking quashment of criminal proceedings and another set of revision petitions has been filed seeking to challenge the orders passed by the court below rejecting the application for withdrawal of prosecution filed under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as it then existed) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’]. This order shall also govern disposal of application for withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022 filed by the State in the matter to challenge the order passed by the court below rejecting application seeking withdrawal of prosecution filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. (as it then existed). 2. Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as it then existed) are those which have been filed by the accused in the pending criminal cases. 3. Learned counsel for the proposed applicant argued that Ramsharan Singh, original informant lodged FIR, on which preliminary enquiry was conducted and a criminal case under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) was registered against the accused. The offences involved allegation of forgery and abuse of official position. Such cases, where the allegation is of wide range corruption by abuse and misuse of official position by the accused persons, have to be distinguished from ordinary offences and all citizens, including proposed applicant, are victims. Such offences are primarily against the society at large. In addition to State being the prosecutor, public spirited individuals such as the present applicant are entitled as of law and public policy to seek impledment and oppose prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings as also the prayer for withdrawal of prosecution. The original informant has died. The proposed applicant was closely associated with the original informant. The State moved applications seeking withdrawal of prosecution which though have been rejected, but the orders have been challenged not only by the State, but by the accused also. The original informant has died. The proposed applicant was closely associated with the original informant. The State moved applications seeking withdrawal of prosecution which though have been rejected, but the orders have been challenged not only by the State, but by the accused also. Therefore, in these circumstances, even though, now the State has decided not to pursue its application seeking withdrawal of prosecution, yet taking into consideration that the State has been changing its stand off and on, proposed applicant may be allowed to be impleaded as party. The present applicant is interested in ensuring fair trial. Original informant, Ramsharan Singh had also filed petition seeking transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During pendency of the petition, Ramsharan Singh died and his son moved application seeking withdrawal of the petition. At that stage, present applicant sought impleadment in that petition, which was later on dismissed due to death of writ petitioner Ramsharan Singh, the deceased informant. However, liberty was granted to the proposed applicant to pursue his legal remedy. Proposed applicant has also moved an application for filing documents and participation in the proceedings before the trial court. The applicant is an activist, social worker and public spirited citizen of good moral and sufficient understanding for many decades. He has been assisting voiceless victims of Government’s arbitrary action in the State of Rajasthan, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or political affiliation. He has acted as mouthpiece for common citizens by filing public interest litigations and many complaints details of which have been given in the application which show that he is not coming for the first time in the present case, but has remained actively engaged in various matters. He has also remained engaged in pursuing social and legal actions against corrupt practices. He is not a vexatious litigant. He has no personal interest in the outcome of the present proceedings and he seeks participation only to assist the Court to reach at just and proper decision and to ensure that prosecution and fair trial is not thwarted by oblique motives. Learned counsel for the proposed applicant has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Dharamaraj Vs. Learned counsel for the proposed applicant has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Dharamaraj Vs. Shanmugam & Others, (2022) 15 SCC 136 M.R. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3373 ; Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Others, (1987) 1 SCC 288 ; K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 767 ; Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2013) 16 SCC 190 Amanullah & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2016) 6 SCC 699 ; Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Others, (2017) 9 SCC 340 and Abdul Wahab K. vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2018) 11 SCR 155 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, who have filed petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings as also revision petitions against the rejection of state’s applications seeking withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C., have opposed the prayer for impleadment on the submission that the proposed applicant is not a bona fide litigant, but nurtures vengeance against the petitioners before this Court. He has filed instant application actuated by political motivation only. He is a habitual offender and number of criminal cases have been registered against him. At times, proposed applicant’s petitions have been dismissed finding no basis. Learned counsel would submit that the proposed applicant is neither first informant, nor complainant. He is not even a victim, nor does he have any bona fide or precise connection with the alleged offences. He is only actuated by sheer vengeance to complicate the proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that in the changed scenario, now the State no longer appears to be prosecuting its application seeking withdrawal of prosecution and even application seeking withdrawal of revision petition filed by it and has expressed that it would be opposing the case of the accused rather than supporting them. Since the State is already there as prosecutor, in any case, no purpose would be served in allowing proposed applicant to intermeddle with the proceedings either in the matter of challenge to the criminal proceedings or in the matter of challenge to the order rejecting application for withdrawal of prosecution filed by the State. Since the State is already there as prosecutor, in any case, no purpose would be served in allowing proposed applicant to intermeddle with the proceedings either in the matter of challenge to the criminal proceedings or in the matter of challenge to the order rejecting application for withdrawal of prosecution filed by the State. Learned counsel for the respective accused, in support of their arguments, have placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Subramanian Swamy & Others vs. Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board & Another, (2013) 10 SCC 465 ; Harsh Mandar vs. Amit Anilchandra Shah & Others, (2017) 13 SCC 420 ; Sanjai Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, AIR 2021 SC 893; Amanullah & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others, (supra); Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) & Another Vs. Union of India & Others, (2006) 6 SCC 613; P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam & Another (1980) 3 SCC 141 ; Esher Singh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 2004 (3) SC 391; Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai & Others, JT 2003 (Suppl.2) SC 344; Rama Kant Varma vs. State of U.P. & Others, JT 2008 (13) SC 84; Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Others, (1991) 3 SCC 756 ; Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India & Another, (1992) 4 SCC 653 ; Thakur Ram & Others vs. State of Bihar, 1965 SC Onlie SC 14 and Suga Ram alias Chhuga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 641 and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kishore Samrite vs. Shivraj Singh Chauhan & Others, 2011 (2) M.P.L.J. 357. 5. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel, while opposing the prayer for withdrawal of revision petition made by the State in the matter of challenge to the order rejecting application seeking withdrawal of prosecution, has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs. 5. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel, while opposing the prayer for withdrawal of revision petition made by the State in the matter of challenge to the order rejecting application seeking withdrawal of prosecution, has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Others (2011) 8 SCC 737 ; Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited vs. K.P. Sharma & Others, (2014) 8 SCC 866 ; State of Kerala vs. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi & Others, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 381 ; decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Officers/Employees, (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1696/2023 & other connected petitions decided on 22.08.2024) ; decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Arya @ Kalpita W/o. Salil Amrute & Another vs. Salil s/o. Dilip Amrute, (Criminal Revision No. 54/2012 decided on 09.10.2013) ; decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. State, 1995 SCC OnLine Del 415 ; decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Pir Ghulam Shah vs. Pir Meerajuddin & Another, 1963 SCC OnLine J&K 11 and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ratan Singh vs. State of M.P., 1978 Cri.LJ 1165 6. The applications seeking impleadment/intervention have been filed by Mr. Ashok Pathak in the cases in hand in the backdrop that this Court in the earlier round of litigation, vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5353/2022 quashed criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 1/2021 which was pending at the stage of protest petition before the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act) No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur titled as State Vs. Shailendra Garg & Others emanating out of FIR No. 422/2014 registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur and order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the said Special Court, whereby protect petition was allowed and closure reports dated 12.06.2019 and 07.07.2021 were rejected with a direction for further investigation, were also set aside. Another order dated 17.01.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113-115 and 131/2022 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Sharan Singh & Others), revision petition was allowed and criminal proceedings were quashed. Both the orders were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by proposed applicant, Mr. Another order dated 17.01.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113-115 and 131/2022 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Sharan Singh & Others), revision petition was allowed and criminal proceedings were quashed. Both the orders were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by proposed applicant, Mr. Ashok Pathak and vide common order dated 05.11.2024, order dated 15.11.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5353/2022 was set aside and the case has been remitted for fresh adjudication with certain directions. Hon’ble Supreme Court further permitted the appellant, Mr. Ashok Pathak, the proposed applicant here to intervene in the proceedings subject to determination of the objection regarding locus standi. Further, order dated 17.01.2023 passed in the connected cases arising out of the same FIR was also set aside and the matters are also remitted to this Court for analogous hearing and decision. In the above backdrop, when proposed applicant Mr. Ashok Pathak filed applications for impleadment/intervention, objection as regards locus standi has been raised. 7. Though the first argument of the proposed applicant, Mr. Ashok Pathak is that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he may be allowed to intervene because the orders passed in the first round of litigation were quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at his instance, this Court has been called upon to decide the objection with regard to locus standi in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the proposed applicant has been permitted to intervene in the proceedings subject to the determination of the objection regarding his locus standi. 8. Both the sides have cited various authorities. While learned counsel for the petitioners-accused in the criminal proceedings have opposed the prayer for impleadment or intervention mainly on the submission that Mr. Ashok Pathak is neither first informant, nor victim, nor is he a person having bona fide and precise connection with the offence, citing various precedents, learned counsel for the proposed applicant has submitted that in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proposed applicant may be impleaded or at least allowed to intervene in all the cases which related to serious allegations regarding corruption of those placed in high official position which is a matter in which members of the society are interest to ensure just and fair trial in the larger interest of administration of criminal justice. 9. 9. As early as in the case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam & Another (supra), in the matter of locus of a private citizen, who is neither a complainant, nor first informant and keeping in view the power of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it was held that access to the jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be permitted to a private party who seeks to employ the judicial process for the satisfaction of private revenge or personal vendetta and the Court is bound to consider what is the interest which brings the petitioner to court and whether the interest of the public community will benefit by the grant of special leave. 10. In the case of Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai & Others (supra), again the issue of competence of a private party, as distinguished from the State, to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against a judgment of acquittal came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that Article 136 of the Constitution of India neither confers on anyone the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Court's jurisdiction. 11. In the case of Esher Singh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), while hearing appeal against conviction of Esher Singh and State’s appeal against acquittal of some of the accused in that case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an appeal against judgment of acquittal at the instance of interested private parties is maintainable. The matter was again considered keeping in view the power and jurisdiction exercisable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the case of Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) & Another Vs. Union of India & Others (supra), the facts were that writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation by the petitioners therein who were Members of Parliament at the time of filing of the petitions. 12. In the case of Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) & Another Vs. Union of India & Others (supra), the facts were that writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation by the petitioners therein who were Members of Parliament at the time of filing of the petitions. Prayer was made for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for monitoring the conduct of the trials and to appoint the very same prosecutor who had been conducting prosecution earlier and the prayer was made to direct the High Court to see that no prosecutor or CBI Officer attached with the investigation and trial of the case should be removed, harassed or victimized for discharging their duties. In that backdrop, it was alleged that the fair trial was being thwarted. In such factual background, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a criminal case, a person, who has no interest, shall not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court by intervening in the proceedings and a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding alone has locus standi to file a public interest litigation and a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive, or any oblique consideration has no such right to file public interest litigation. That was a case where the maintainability of public interest litigation was doubted. It was noted that public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed at the time when the recording of the prosecution evidence was almost over and the trial had reached at final stage. It was observed that If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding the removal of the public prosecutor, they should have submitted their grievance before the Special Judge or before the High Court. It was also observed that the petitioners therein were absolutely strangers as regard the criminal case against the accused therein and had no direct connection with the case. 13. In the case of Rama Kant Varma vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra), the facts were that special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court directing acquittal of accused who were found guilty of offence. The appellant therein was the informant of the case. 13. In the case of Rama Kant Varma vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra), the facts were that special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court directing acquittal of accused who were found guilty of offence. The appellant therein was the informant of the case. The locus of the complainant to prefer appeal was questioned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted its earlier decision in the case of Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai & Others (supra) and the matter was remitted to the High Court for hearing of the case afresh. 14. In the case of Amanullah & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra), criminal appeal by special leave was directed against judgment of the High Court whereby it allowed misc. petition setting aside cognizance order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The question which arose was that whether appeal at the instance of the appellant was maintainable on the ground of locus standi. After referring to several earlier decisions including the decisions which this Court has referred to hereinabove, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant therein had locus standi to maintain the appeal as he was found having precise connection with the matter at hand and, thus, was found to be possessed of locus to maintain the appeal. It was importantly observed that it may not be possible to strictly enumerate as to who all will have locus to maintain an appeal before the Court invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India and it depends upon the factual matrix of each case, as each case has its unique set of facts. It was even held that the Court should be liberal in allowing any third party, having bona fide connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal with a view to advance substantial justice, though such power is required to be exercised with due care and caution. Persons, who are wholly unconnected with the matter under consideration or having personal grievance against the accused, should be checked and strict vigilance is required to be maintained in this regard. 15. Persons, who are wholly unconnected with the matter under consideration or having personal grievance against the accused, should be checked and strict vigilance is required to be maintained in this regard. 15. In yet another decision in the case of Subramanian Swamy & Others vs. Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board & Another (supra), the factual premise in the backdrop of which the issue of locus was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the petitioners in the SLP had earlier approached the Juvenile Justice Board seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the Board in the matter of alleged offence of gang rape. The question which fell for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the adjudication sought by the petitioners/appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court should be refused at the threshold on the basis of fairly well established legal proposition that the third party/stranger does not have any right to participate in criminal prosecution which is primarily the function of the State. Taking into consideration that the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had sought indulgence in the backdrop that they had prayed for interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, it was held that it would be appropriate to hold that special leave petition does not suffer from vice of absence of locus so as to render the same not maintainable in law. 16. In the case of Harsh Mandar vs. Amit Anilchandra Shah & Others, (supra), special leave petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. In that case, petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Bombay High Court against discharge order though CBI had not preferred any revision petition. It was held by the Bombay High Court that applicant therein was neither a victim, nor an aggrieved person. Further, he was not, in any manner, connected with the proceedings pending before the Sessions Court. He had not suffered any prejudice, nor demonstrated that his legal rights were impaired or that any harm, injury was caused to him or likely to be caused. In that background, it was held that the person did not have any locus. It has to be noted that this was a case where the order of discharge was challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. In that background, it was held that the person did not have any locus. It has to be noted that this was a case where the order of discharge was challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. Various decisions, which have been cited as above to oppose the prayer for impleadment/intervention at the instance of the proposed applicant, lay down broad propositions that a person, who is totally stranger to proceedings, who is not even a victim and has no bona fide connection with the offence, may not be allowed to challenge the proceedings. However, the proposed applicant is not one, who has challenged any proceedings, but he seeks intervention in pending petitions filed by the accused seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings or intervention in the pending revision petitions wherein an order passed by the Court below rejecting application seeking withdrawal of the prosecution is under challenge. Proposed applicant has not independently filed any case. 18. In the case of P. Dharamaraj Vs. Shanmugam & Others (supra), a victim centric approach was adopted to hold that the petitioner therein was also one of the victims and thus, had a locus. 19. In the case of M.R. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala & Others (supra), locus of private individual seeking to exercise jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was examined in the light of earlier decisions and keeping in view that the petitioner therein was a socially spirited person and Editor of a newspaper and he had filed an application for intervention before the High Court resisting quashing petition. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that locus of that person does not come in the way of the Court in hearing the same. It was observed that the case involved serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice. 20. In the case of Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra), the locus of the petitioner therein to object to the application for withdrawal was challenged. Following pertinent observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “ 14. The learned counsel on behalf of Dr. 20. In the case of Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra), the locus of the petitioner therein to object to the application for withdrawal was challenged. Following pertinent observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “ 14. The learned counsel on behalf of Dr. Jagannath Mishra also raised another contention of a preliminary nature with a view to displacing the locus standi of Sheonandan Paswan to prefer the present appeal. It was urged that when Shri Lallan Prasad Sinha applied for permission to withdraw the prosecution against Dr. Jagannath Mishra and others, Sheonandan Paswan had no locus to oppose the withdrawal since it was a matter entirely between the Public Prosecutor and the Chief Judicial Magistrate and no other person had a right to intervene and oppose the withdrawal and since Sheonandan Paswan had no standing to oppose the withdrawal, he was not entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court granting permission for withdrawal. We do not think there is any force in this contention. It is now settled law that a criminal proceeding is not a proceeding for vindication of a private grievance but it is a proceeding initiated for the purpose of punishment to the offender in the interest of the society. It is for maintaining stability and orderliness in the society that certain acts are constituted offences and the right is given to any citizen to set the machinery of the criminal law in motion for the purpose of bringing the offender to book. It is for this reason that in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500 this Court pointed out that (SCC p. 509, para 6) "punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait jacket formula of locus standi...". This Court observed that locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. This Court observed that locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. Now if any citizen can lodge a first information report or file a complaint and set the machinery of the criminal law in motion and his locus standi to do so cannot be questioned, we do not see why a citizen who finds that a prosecution for an offence against the society is being wrongly withdrawn, cannot oppose such withdrawal. If he can be a complainant or initiator of criminal prosecution, he should equally be entitled to oppose withdrawal of the criminal prosecution which has already been initiated at his instance. If the offence for which a prosecution is being launched is an offence against the society and not merely an individual wrong, any member of the society must have locus to initiate a prosecution as also to resist withdrawal of such prosecution, if initiated. Here in the present case, the offences charged against Dr. Jagannath Mishra and others are offences of corruption, criminal breach of trust etc. and therefore any person who is interested in cleanliness of public administration and public morality would be entitled to file a complaint, as held by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and equally he would be entitled to oppose the withdrawal of such prosecution if it is already instituted. We must therefore reject the contention urged on behalf of Dr. Jagannath Mishra that Sheonandan Paswan had no locus standi to oppose the withdrawal of the prosecution. If he was entitled to oppose the withdrawal of the prosecution, it must follow a fortiorari that on the turning down of his opposition by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate he was entitled to prefer a revision application to the High Court and on the High Court rejecting his revision application he had standing to prefer an appeal to this Court. We must therefore reject this contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Jagannath Mishra.” 21. In yet another decision in the case of K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police & Others (supra), following pertinent observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “ 13. It has also been urged that the petitioner being a political opponent of Respondent 2, these petitions have been launched against Respondent 2 on ground of political vendetta. This submission also has no force. It has also been urged that the petitioner being a political opponent of Respondent 2, these petitions have been launched against Respondent 2 on ground of political vendetta. This submission also has no force. In a democracy, the political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House. They are the watchdogs of the Government in power. It will be their effective weapon to counter the misdeeds and mischiefs of the Government in power. They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large, if genuinely and unbiasedly projected. In that view of the matter, being a political opponent, the petitioner is a vitally interested party in the running of the Government or in the administration of criminal justice in the State. The petition lodged by such persons cannot be brushed aside on the allegation of a political vendetta, if otherwise, it is genuine and raises a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of bias in the dispensation of criminal justice system. This question has been set at rest by this Court in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (SCC p. 318, para 16), where it is said: "It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant." This decision was reiterated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.” 22. There are many more decisions cited at the bar by learned counsel for the parties. However, it is not necessary for this Court to go into each and every decision. Having examined the legal position in the light of plethora of decisions on the issue of locus, a person, who is vitally interested in fair investigation and trial, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of abuse of official position and corruption in public offices, even he may not be a victim as such or a person who set the criminal law in motion, would not be ousted only on the ground that he does not happen to be the complainant or a victim. 23. Accordingly, in view of above consideration, this Court is inclined to allow the proposed applicant to intervene in these proceedings. 23. Accordingly, in view of above consideration, this Court is inclined to allow the proposed applicant to intervene in these proceedings. Applications for impleadment/intervention filed in above set of petitions are allowed in the manner and to the extent as stated above. 24. This Court has also heard learned counsel for the parties on the application filed by the State seeking to withdraw S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022. This revision petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the Court below rejecting application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw the prosecution. May be in the changed scenario, the State is not willing to press its application for withdrawal of prosecution and, therefore, it has decided to accept the order rejecting application seeking withdrawal of the prosecution, at the same time, that order challenged by the State is also under challenge in connected revision petitions. Therefore, even if we allow the State to withdraw its revision petition, correctness and validity of the order passed by the Court below rejecting application seeking withdrawal of prosecution will have to be decided on its own merits. It is not a case where all the revision petitions seeking to challenge the order rejecting application for withdrawal of the prosecution are sought to be withdrawn. Therefore, in this peculiar background, despite opposition of the accused, who are petitioners in connected revision petitions, this Court is inclined to allow the State to withdraw revision petition with the observation that it will be open for the petitioners in connected revision petitions to assail the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Court below rejecting application for withdrawal of the prosecution. Application is accordingly allowed and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2022 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Sharan Singh & Others is dismissed as withdrawn. 25. All the cases be listed on Wednesday, i.e., 14.05.2025 at 11.00 A.M. for analogous hearing in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to expedite hearing and decision of the cases within specific time limit. 26. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on record of each connected petition.