New Delhi [India], September 10 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea of Businessman Sushil Ansal against a trial court order. This matter pertains to a passport case.
On August 4, Delhi's Patiala House Court had allowed victims of the Uphar tragedy to assist the Prosecution in a case against businessman Sushil Ansal.
Justice Arun Monga issued notice to Delhi Police and the Association of Victims of the Uphar Tragedy (AVUT).
The matter has been listed on November 25 for a hearing. The High Court has granted no stay on the proceedings.
Plea of Ansal has submitted that it is evident that no injury of any nature has been caused to AVUT or its officials from the alleged acts of the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the right to prosecute vests solely with the State.
"Permitting a third party to assist the prosecution in the Criminal Case would undermine the fairness of the trial, and grave prejudice would be caused to the Partitioner," the plea said
It is further said that it is settled law that AVUT has no right to interfere in judicial proceedings since it is not an "aggrieved person". Only one who has suffered a legal injury can be permitted to approach the Court.
Respondent AVUT, being a stranger with no connection to the matter and having suffered no legal injury, has no locus standi to raise any grievance or seek participation in the proceedings, the plea added.
Ansal has been charge-sheeted in a Passport Act case. This case is at the stage of framing charges.
This case was lodged pursuant to the order passed by the Delhi High Court on a petition moved by the Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy (AVUT).
The trial Court had ordered, "Accordingly, as opposed to being given the reins of the prosecution itself, the Association is at liberty to assist the prosecution in the present case, by accord of which participatory rights in view of settled jurisprudence on the subject, no prejudice would be caused to the accused."
AVUT had moved an application through its president, Neelam Krishnamurthy, and arguements were heard on July 19.
Senior Counsel Vikas Pahwa had appeared for the association. He argued that the Association should be permitted to prosecute the matter, considering the grievances underscored in the manner concerning the investigation and the manner in which the chargesheet was eventually filed, obviating certain offences which ought to have been part of the charge sheet.
He had highlighted that the present case came to be registered pursuant to an Order passed by the High Court in a petition filed by the same Association, and therefore, the effective right of participation ought to be given to the Association.
On the other hand, the plea was opposed by the counsel for accused Sushil Ansal, stating that the Association has no locus to lead the prosecution in the matter, considering the peculiar allegations in the present case, essentially concerning the offences under the Passports Act.
The Association, in a restricted sense of the term, is not a 'victim' in the present case, nor can it espouse their cause, the counsel had argued.