Bombay High Court

Chandrakant C ShahversusState of Maharashtra

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

A victim does not possess a vested right to conduct or interfere with the prosecution beyond assisting the public prosecutor and may file pleadings, rendering the petition to bar such participation without merit.

Summary

The petitioner, accused in crime case No. 205/PS/2011, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to prevent the victim (Respondent No.2) from intervening in the trial, including presenting documents and participating beyond giving evidence. The petition alleged that the victim had no right to interfere except as permitted under Section 302 of the CrPC. The Court examined the scope of a victim's rights, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, which held that a victim has no vested right to conduct the prosecution but may assist the public prosecutor and be heard at critical stages. The Court observed that the victim is not barred from filing pleadings or tendering documents, and the trial judge retains discretion to admit such evidence. Finding no merit in the petition’s claims, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a victim of a crime has a vested right to intervene in the prosecution beyond giving evidence as per Section 302 of the CrPC.
Whether the victim can tender documents and file pleadings in the trial proceedings.
Whether the trial court can be directed by a writ to prohibit the victim’s participation in the trial.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 2(wa), 302

Subjects

victim's rights
criminal procedure
intervention in prosecution
Article 226
mandamus
exemplary costs
public prosecutor
evidence admission

Judgment

DTG 32-Wp-3195-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3195 OF 2025

Chandrakant C. Shah … Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
_______________________________________

Petitioner-in-person is present.

Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

Mr. Mhaske W.V., PSI, Mulund Police Station, Mumbai, present.
_______________________________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 16th September 2026

P.C. :

1) The Petitioner accused in crime bearing CC No. 205/PS/2011

has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the

following substantive reliefs :-

“(i) hold and declare that Respondent No. 2 has no rights of any
nature to interfere or intervene in the proceedings before the
Trial Court, save and except for giving evidence as per law, or
unless specifically permitted to lead prosecution as per
provisions of section 302 of CrPC;
(ii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction in the like nature to the Ld. Magistrate to discard
and dispose the replies dated 28.05.2025 filed by Respondent

1/4
DTG 32-Wp-3195-2025.doc

No. 2 which are marked as Exhibit 9 and 10 in the case file ;
(iii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction in the like nature to the Ld. Magistrate to not
permit any kind of intervention or interference by
Respondent No. 2 or her pleader during hearings and case
proceedings (save and except for giving evidence as per law,
or unless specifically permitted to lead prosecution as per
provisions of section 302 of CrPC), and in case Respondent
No.2 defies any such orders or directions of the Ld.
Magistrate, to have her removed from the Court room;
(iv) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction in the like nature to the Ld. Magistrate to impose
exemplary cost on Respondent No. 2 for causing unnecessary
impediments in the administration of justice without any
reasonable or sufficient cause”

2) The Respondent No.2 herein is the victim of a crime, as

contemplated under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the

Petitioner that, Respondent No. 2 is directly tendering certain documents

before the learned Magistrate during the course of the trial, who is taking

such documents on record by marking them as exhibit numbers. In this

precise background, the present Petition is filed.

3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundeep Kumar

Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623 , in

paragraph No.32 has held as under :

2/4
DTG 32-Wp-3195-2025.doc

“The upshot of this analysis is that no vested right is granted to
a complainant or informant or aggrieved party to directly
conduct a prosecution. So far as the Magistrate is concerned,
comparative latitude is given to him but he must always bear
in mind that while the prosecution must remain being robust
and comprehensive and effective it should not abandon the
need to be free, fair and diligent. So far as the Sessions Court
is concerned, it is the Public Prosecutor who must at all times
remain in control of the prosecution and a counsel of a private
party can only assist the Public Prosecutor in discharging its
responsibility. The complainant or informant or aggrieved
party may, however, be heard at a crucial and critical juncture
of the trial so that his interests in the prosecution are not
prejudiced or jeopardized. It seems to us that constant or even
frequent interference in the prosecution should not be
encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its
impartiality. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge harbours the
opinion that the prosecution is likely to fail, prudence would
prompt that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party
be given an informal hearing…………………………………….”

4) Undoubtedly, Respondent No.2 by herself cannot conduct the

prosecution by sidetracking the concerned APP. However, if she wishes to

assist the Court in conducting the trial, she has to assist the APP. The law

relating to right of the victim in a crime, in assisting the Court, has been

enumerated in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case of

Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra).

3/4
DTG 32-Wp-3195-2025.doc

5) However, according to us, the victim of a crime is not precluded

from filing pleadings in the proceedings. The learned Judge conducting the

trial of the said case, at the end of the trial, will consider whether to accept

the documents or not to accept. The Petitioner has a right to cross-examine

the victim on the basis of the said documents, if so advised.

6) In view of the above, we find that there are no merits in the

Petition.

7) Petition is accordingly dismissed.

( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

Digitally signed
by
DNYANESHWAR DNYANESHWAR
TULSHIRAM TULSHIRAM
GHUMNAR GHUMNAR
Date: 2026.09.19
11:30:22 +0530

4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Ashish I Satpute