Definition Of Victim In BNSS Doesn't Cover Loss/Injury To Persons In The Past, Can't Prosecute Accused In Subsequent Cases: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court recently clarified that the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(y) of BNSS does not cover the loss or injury suffered by any person in the past at the behest of the accused and thus, such persons cannot be allowed to object in subsequent cases filed against the accused by some other victim.

A single judge bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed, “The definition of the victim as provided in Section 2(y) of the BNSS does not cover in its sweep, the loss or injury which have been sustained by a person in past at the behest of the accused who is being prosecuted by some other victim subsequently. If the interpretation as proposed by the objector is taken into consideration for sake of assumption, it would open the flood gates of the litigation and the victims in past all cases will automatically be entitled to raise objection against the accused persons in the subsequent cases which are lodged against the accused persons despite the fact that such victim has no nexus with the subsequent act and has not suffered any losses or injury by the subsequent act of the same accused.”

The present application was filed under Section 339 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 301(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Permission to conduct prosecution).

The counsel for the applicant argued that the objector being a stranger to the litigation had no right to prefer any objection nor can move any application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C./Section 339 of BNSS. It is further submitted that the case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant and the proposed objector is not the complainant, and therefore, the present application by the objector is not maintainable. It is argued that the objector was in a habit of blackmailing. The counsel also brought to the notice of the court the details of the 6 cases lodged by the objector in the past against different persons. It is submitted that the “modus operandi” of the objector had been to pressurize the innocent persons and then enter into compromise with them.

On the contrary, the counsel for the objector contended that the present applicant is a habitual offender and the objector is one of the victim of the present applicant. It is contended that the applicant had affair with 2 other girls who are of different religions and on account of applicant's conduct, the communal harmony was at stake. Therefore, the objector has right to move application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 339 of BNSS. Further, placing reliance on Section 2(y) of BNSS, it was submitted that the objector is an interested person and thus, entitled to maintain objection.

After hearing both the parties, the court inferred that the objector was not the complainant on the basis of whose complaint, the FIR against the present applicant was registered. Moreover, the objector had in the past registered 2 cases against the applicant and had also registered FIR against many other persons. Relying on Amanullah and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2016 6 SCC 699, the court said that the objector has no locus unless he has bonafide connection with the cause of action and evidently, in the present case, the objector had no bonafide connection with the cause of action.

“The objector according to is not only prosecuting the present applicant but also prosecuting the other persons...The objector is not a victim as the objector in connection with the case in hand has not suffered any loss or injury by the act and omission of the present applicant so far as the case in hand is concerned. Merely the objector in past had lodged the FIR against the present applicant, does not entitle the objector to intervene in every case which is filed against the applicant.”, the Court said.

The court remarked that the definition of 'victim' provided under Section 2(y) of the BNSS does not cover the loss or injury suffered by a person in the past at the behest of the accused who is being prosecuted by some other victim subsequently. If the objector's interpretation of Section 2(y) is considered, it would open flood gates of the litigation as victims will be automatically be entitled to raise objections in any new cases against the accused.

Thus, the court dismissed the present application.

Case Title: Ismile Shah Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Mcrc No. 46833 Of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order