1 2025:CGHC:16243-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP ( CR ) No. 187 of 2025 XYZ (Name and address is annexed with a separate envelope with the Petition). ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Home, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent / State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue order/orders, writ / writs and direction / directions & may quashed the order impugned dated 03-03-2025 passed by the Resp. no 2/Collector, Baloda-Bazar, and the proceedings pending before the learned trail court may be conducted & concluded with the order dated 23-07-2024. II. That, since the petitioner is ready to bear the cost of his own pocket for the advocate, thus he may be permitted to continue the help the justice delivery system, and would also help to conclude the trail within time. III. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 4. Brief facts of this case are that on 24.01.2024, the petitioner i.e. the father of the victim/complainant made a complaint before the Police Station- Suhela, alleging commission of an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(u), 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) against the accused-Sonendra Sharma which was registered as Crime No. 93/2024 at Police Station, Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. The accused is also a Teacher in which the victim was studying and after registration of F.I.R., the accused absconded, but after rejection of anticipatory bail, he surrendered before the learned trial Court and sought regular bail. The petitioner being father of the victim was threatened to take back the case as the accused is very well connected with the higher management ofÏcers of the school and thereby the petitioner was also pressurized not only politically, but the police also threatened him to face the consequences, if the complaint/F.I.R. would not be taken back. Looking to the various kind of pressure tactics and 3 threatening given to the father and the victim, the petitioner moved an application before the Respondent No.2/ Collector Balod-Bazar, for appointment of an Advocate of their own choice to prosecute the offender/accused before the learned trial Court. The Respondent No. 2/Collector Balod-Bazar, upon hearing on the application dated 22.07.2024, opened a note-sheet and started proceeding. In furtherance of the same the respondent No.2/Collector Balod-Bazar, has allowed the application vide order dated 23.07.2024 and appointed one Hridyanand Sahu as Government Advocate on condition that the petitioner would bear all the expenses at his own end and would not claim any sum from the State. The learned trial Court after some dates, issued a memo dated 31.01.2025 seeking explanation from the Respondent No.2/Collector Balod-Bazar as to under which provision of law such order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Reminder was also issued to the Collector on 01.03.2025. In pursuance of the aforesaid memo and reminder, the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara has cancelled the order of appointment of Advocate vide order dated 03.03.2025 which is sought to be challenged herein. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Collector ought to have granted an opportunity of hearing before passing the order cancelling appointment of the Government Advocate. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that earlier the Public Prosecutor appointed was not taking any interest in the matter for a very long time and only after change of the regime in the State, when the new Special Public Prosecutor was appointed, the matter reached upto the stage of charge and the petitioner obtained permission from the Collector under Section 25(3) of the Cr.P.C. to prosecute the case with an Advocate of his own choice, which is is not at all erroneous. There is no harm if the 4 Government Advocate appointed by the Collector conducts the trial on behalf of the victim and especially when the petitioner is ready to bear the cost and expenses. Mr. Gupta further places reliance on Section 40 of the POCSO Act which provides for a right of the child to take assistance of legal practitioner. He also places reliance on the Law Department Manual, Chapter III, clause 48 which states about employment of counsel in criminal case wherein Public Prosecutor is bound to appear but is not available. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that it is for the learned trial Court concerned and the State has no say in this matter. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. It transpires from the order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P/1), the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara has merely withdrawn its earlier order dated 22.07.2024 by which the petitioner was granted permission to engage a private counsel of his choice at his own expenses. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for recalling the order dated 22.07.2024. 9. The petitioner still has the remedy to engage a counsel of his choice under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. - (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so 5 instructed shall act therein under the direction of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written argument after the evidence is closed in the case.” 10. As the petitioner has the remedy to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C., and he may make a request before the learned trial Court for engaging a counsel of his choice, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.09 20:27:57 +0530