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. ) 4/4 DNYANESHWAR TULSHIRAM GHUMNAR Digitally signed by DNYANESHWAR TULSHIRAM GHUMNAR Date: 2026.09.19 11:30:22 +0530