- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 17716 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. K. MANJUNATH, S/O N.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A KARIBEERANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114. 2. K.K. AMBARISH, S/O N.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KARIBEERANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE CITY - 560 001. 2. UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION, POLICE SERVICE-B, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER / POLICE INSPECTOR, HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 114. 4. SMT. CHAITHANYA M.A., D/O VENKATESHALU, ADVOCATE, NO.13/2, NAGAPPA STREET, 4TH CROSS, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 003. 5. MR. BASANTH KUMAR, S/O V. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A KARIBEERANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 114. (NOW R/A MALURU TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (ABSENT); SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.OE 510 PPE/2018 DATED 10.10.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN APPOINTING R-4 AS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CONDUCTING SESSIONS TRIAL IN SC NO.28/2017 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE VIIITH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.28/2017, pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru have filed this petition seeking to quash the notification No.OE510PPE/2018 dated 10-10-2019 produced as per Annexure-A issued by Respondent No. 2 appointing respondent No. 4 as the Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial in S.C.No.28 of 2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No. 2 has issued notification dated 10-10-2019, appointing respondent No. 4 as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in S.C.No. 28 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru and directed the complainant to pay the fees payable to the Special Public Prosecutor. The same is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 challenged by the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said case. 3. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior advocate for Sri Nasir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri. Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the materials on records. 4. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that Crime No.131 of 2016 of Hosakote police station came to the registered on 01.02.2016 for the offence under Sections 341, 302, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.5. After filing the charge sheet, the matter is now pending in S.C.No. 28 of 2017, before the Trial Court. In the meantime, the wife of accused No.1 filed the complaint, registered in Crime No.137 of 2016 of Hosakote police station against the deceased and respondent No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 506, 504, 323, 307, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The same is now pending in S.C.No.159 of 2019. Both these matters are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 considered as case and counter case and the trial is pending before the Trial Court. 5. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that respondent No. 2 at the instance of respondent No. 5 issued Annexure-A - the notification dated 10-10-2019 appointing respondent No. 4 as the Special Public Prosecutor and directed her to collect fees from respondent No. 5 - the complainant, which is against the settled proposition of law that, an interested party cannot be appointed as a Special Prosecutor to be the mouthpiece of the complainant. To appoint Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of Cr.PC, there must be strong reasons and no such reasons are available in the present case. Moreover, respondent No.4 was representing respondent No. 5, the complainant, in the counter case where he is arrayed as an accused and she herself is appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor, which is bad in law. 6. Learned senior advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manalpady Naresh Shenoy v/s State of Karnataka1, to contend that 1 2021 0 Supreme(Kar)952 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 the Special Public Prosecutor should be appointed under Section 24 of Cr.PC as it is the responsibility of the prosecution to safeguard the interest of the general public. He cannot be the mouthpiece of the complainant to get the conviction by hook or crook. Since respondent No. 4 was the advocate representing respondent No.5, no fair trial could be expected by the accused and therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the Special Public Prosecutor under Annexure-A is bad under law. 7. Learned senior advocate also placed reliance on the very same decision, which is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra and Others v/s Prakash Prahlad Patil and Others2 and K.V Shiva Reddy v/s State of Karnataka and others3, in support of his contention that the remuneration for the Special Public Prosecutor cannot be ordered to be paid by the complainant . 8. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned senior advocate contended that Annexure- A is the order of appointing 2 (2009) 12 SCC 159 3 ILR 2005 KAR 4780 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 respondent No.4 as the Special Public Prosecutor is bad under law and it will not satisfy the requirement of law and under Section 24 of Cr.PC and hence prays for allowing the petition. 9. Learned senior advocate also draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-L, the application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.5 - the complainant stating that the learned Special Public Prosecutor i.e., respondent No.4 appointed as per the notification produced as per Annexure-A, is unable to completely concentrate on the said case and therefore, her colleague is to be appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor. The colleague referred to by respondent No.5 in the said memo is also one of the advocate, who signed the vakalath for and on behalf of respondent No.5. Therefore, it is clear that the notification at Annexure-A is passed without application of mind and therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition. 10. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 placing reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K V Shiva Reddy (supra) prays for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 allowing the petition in terms of the conditions referred to in paragraph No.41 of the said decision. 11. In view of the above, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the notification dated 10.10.2019 issued by respondent No.2?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 12. In view of the categorical submission made by learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.5 to allow the petition, I am not going into the merits of the case in detail, however, it is suffice to note that Annexure-A came to be issued by the Government mechanically without application of mind. Prima-facie it is clear that, respondent No.4 had appeared for respondent No.5 and it cannot be said that she is an independent advocate who can prosecute the case fairly. Even according to respondent No.5, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 respondent No.4 is busy with her other work and is not in a position to discharge her duty as a Special Public Prosecutor. 13. In K.V.Shiva Reddy (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the objection for appointing the Special Public Prosecutor and payment of remuneration to such Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of Cr.P.C. and while allowing the petition, concluded in paragraph No.41 as under: "41. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:- (a) Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order dated 28-4-2003 appointing the second respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C.No.239/2004 c/w SC 214/2004 in Crime No.4/2003 registered by the Gownapalli Police, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, is hereby quashed. c) Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to approach the Government for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. d) If any such request is made by the third respondent, the Government shall consider such request in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 e) In the event of the Government deciding to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the case and decides to direct the third respondent to pay the remuneration for such Special Public Prosecutor, the Government shall quantify the remuneration payable by the third respondent to the Special Public Prosecutor and direct her to deposit the said amount to the Government. Thereafter, Government shall pay the said amount to the Special Public Prosecutor. f) No costs." 14. Both the parties in the present case submit that they are satisfied if the similar order is passed in the present case. Under such circumstances, I do not have any hesitation to held that Annexure-A is liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.10.2019 produced as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1807 WP No. 17716 of 2021 (iii) Liberty is reserved with respondent No.5 to approach the Government for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, if he is advised to do so. (iv) If such request is made by respondent No.5, the Government shall consider such request in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above. (v) In the event of the Government deciding to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the case and decides to direct respondent No.5 to pay the remuneration for such Special Public Prosecutor, the Government shall quantify the remuneration payable and direct respondent No.5 to deposit the said amount to the Government. Thereafter, the Government shall pay the said amount to the Special Public Prosecutor, if appointed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV/MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK