Locus standi and prima facie criminality upheld where allegations warranted trial and quashing was refused at summoning stage.

Private complainant locus standi was upheld in a complaint alleging serious criminality, with the Court holding that a private citizen's right to set the criminal law in motion is not narrowly confined to directly affected shareholders or donors. At the summoning stage, the Court required only a broad review of the complaint and pre-summoning material, not a detailed examination of disputed facts. On that basis, allegations of siphoning party funds, nominal assignment of debt, acquisition of corporate assets, and use of a special purpose vehicle disclosed a prima facie case, and interference under inherent jurisdiction was refused. The criminal proceedings were therefore not quashed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complainant lacked locus standi to institute the complaint; (ii) whether the allegations and pre-summoning material disclosed a prima facie case for summoning the accused and justified interference under inherent jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the complainant lacked locus standi to institute the complaint.

Analysis: The objection to locus standi was rejected in the context of a complaint alleging serious criminality involving a political party and its office bearers. The Court held that the right of a private citizen to set the criminal law in motion could not be narrowly curtailed merely because the alleged wrongdoing was not brought by a directly affected shareholder or donor. The complaint was treated as maintainable in the peculiar facts of the case.

Conclusion: The challenge to locus standi failed and was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether the allegations and pre-summoning material disclosed a prima facie case for summoning the accused and justified interference under inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that at the summoning stage a detailed evaluation of disputed facts was unwarranted and that only a bird's-eye view of the complaint and evidence was required. On that standard, the Court found the allegations of siphoning of party funds, assignment of debt for a nominal consideration, acquisition of control over the company's assets, and use of a special purpose vehicle to secure control over AJL to be sufficiently serious to warrant trial. The Court also held that the contention that the dispute was merely commercial could not displace the criminal allegations at this stage, and that interference under Section 482 was not justified to stifle the prosecution.

Conclusion: A prima facie case existed and the summoning order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were not fit for quashing at the threshold, and the criminal proceedings were left to be examined at the charge stage.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under inherent jurisdiction, the Court will not conduct a meticulous appraisal of disputed facts at the summoning stage, and where the complaint and pre-summoning material disclose a prima facie case of criminality, the prosecution should not be stifled merely because the transaction also has a commercial or corporate complexion.

---