Summary
Permission for a complainant to conduct prosecution before a Magistrate requires judicial consideration, rather than automatic grant because the applicant is aggrieved. The Magistrate should assess whether the victim can assist the court and handle the case’s complexity, guided by whether justice is better served. Both the unreasoned refusal and the High Court’s mechanical grant were set aside, and the application was remitted for fresh consideration.
Issues
- What considerations govern permission for a private complainant to conduct a Magistrate’s prosecution under section 302.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Confers discretionary power on the Magistrate to permit private conduct of prosecution personally or through counsel, subject to a judicial assessment of assistance and case complexity. (¶¶ 5, 13–16)
Held
- Section 301 permits private counsel’s assistance under the prosecutor’s direction, whereas section 302 gives Magistrates a wider power to permit conduct of prosecution. This wider power does not extend to private takeover of prosecution in a Sessions Court. (¶¶ 6, 8–10)
- An aggrieved person remains entitled to participate and assist despite a police investigation and charge-sheet. Permission should generally follow where the cause of justice is better served, but victim status alone does not compel its grant. (¶ 9–15)
- The Magistrate should assess the victim’s ability to assist and whether the trial’s complexities can be handled. The High Court granted permission without examining those parameters; the Magistrate had refused it without reasons. Both orders required setting aside. (¶¶ 3, 15–16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court and Magistrate orders set aside. Application remitted to the Magistrate to decide afresh whether the complainant should be permitted to prosecute the specified offences.