Complainant's Locus Foreign to Criminal Law: Raj HC

Locus Standi Foreign to Criminal Law; Police Cannot Question Complainant's Locus: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash FIRs

Published: 22 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs for cheating, forgery and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that a complainant's locus standi is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence (paras 10-11). The police cannot question a complainant's locus, civil and criminal proceedings can run together, and the police were entitled to investigate (paras 14-15, 19-21).

Key holdings

That the complainant is a stranger to the transaction, or that his credentials are doubted, is immaterial (paras 10-11).

A closure report in a related FIR, filed on a 'mistake of fact' and not on falsity of the allegations, does not support quashing (para 13).

Civil and criminal proceedings can be maintained on the same set of allegations (para 15).

Non-production of the original Section 156(3) complaint did not by itself show serious non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (para 18).

The order does not decide the impersonation allegations; the police have a right to investigate (paras 15, 19-20).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioners sought quashing of two FIRs registered at Police Station Kotwali Bundi in 2019: FIR No. 44/2019 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, and FIR No. 72/2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act (paras 1, 13). The allegation is that one petitioner impersonated a person who does not exist, in conspiracy with others (para 15). The petitioners argued that the complainant, a press reporter, was a stranger without locus, that the dispute was civil under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and that the original Section 156(3) complaint had not been produced (paras 3-6). The State reported that investigation was in progress (para 7).

Court's Findings

Following the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay, the Court held that anyone may set the criminal law in motion unless the statute creating the offence indicates otherwise, and that a complainant's locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence; objections to his credentials or locus were immaterial (paras 10-11). It noted that Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act restricts transfer of SC/ST land and that no ejectment proceeding was shown to be pending (para 12). The closure report in a related FIR was proposed on a 'mistake of fact' because investigation would continue in FIR No. 72/2019, not because the allegations were found false, so it did not help the petitioners (para 13). The police have no authority to question anyone's locus when the law permits registration of a cognizable offence on any information (para 14). Civil and criminal proceedings may be maintained on the same allegations (para 15). Applying Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court held that non-production of the original complaint did not show serious non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava, that the police had collected some material and could investigate, and that nothing showed the FIRs were frivolous (paras 16-20).

Legal Principle

Unless the statute creating an offence provides otherwise, anyone may set the criminal law in motion: a complainant's locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence, and the police cannot question it. An FIR that discloses a cognizable offence is not quashed under Section 482 CrPC while the investigation is in progress (paras 10-11, 14-15, 19-20).

Precedents Relied Upon

A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another 1984 CrLJ 647 (SC)
Applied Discussed at ¶ 8, 10, 11
Anyone can set the criminal law in motion unless the statute provides otherwise; a complainant's locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence, so the objection to the complainant's locus failed.
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others 2021 SCC Online SC 315
Applied Discussed at ¶ 8, 17
Principles for quashing under Section 482: courts should not thwart investigation of cognizable offences or examine the merits of the allegations while investigation is in progress.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Applied Discussed at ¶ 16
Illustrative categories for quashing under Section 482 CrPC; none was shown to apply.

View all precedents (7)

P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 765
Applied Discussed at ¶ 15
Civil and criminal proceedings can be maintained on the same set of allegations.
Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 528
Applied Discussed at ¶ 15
There is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings on the same allegations.
Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. AIR 2015 SC 1758
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 6, 18
Relied on by the petitioners on the Magistrate applying his mind under Section 156(3); non-production of the original complaint was held not to show serious non-compliance with its directions.
Commissioner of Police and others v. Devender Anand & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 834/2017
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 6
Cited by the petitioners with Priyanka Srivastava on orders under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Statutory Provisions