- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 40196 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M.P. ANAND S/O LATE M. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT: NO.3621/2, 1ST CROSS, UMAR KHAYAM ROAD, TILAK NAGAR MYSURU-570 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT, K.G. ROAD, KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE-01. 3. M.R. NAVEEN CHANDRA S/O V. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.2793, 9TH CROSS, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 002. 4. PRASAD S/O S. NAGARAJ AGE: MAJOR Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 R/AT: NO.705/4, KRISHNA BUILDING, THYAGARAJA ROAD, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2016 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A SANCTIONING APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.4 AS A SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CONDUCTING TRIAL OF C.C.NO.1907/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL FIRST CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC AT MYSORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 12.12.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 approving the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting trial in C.C.No.1907/2013 on the file of the Principal First Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC at Mysuru. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 21.12.2016 bearing No.OE-332-PPE/2016 published by the respondent No.1 appointing the respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor. 2. (i) The petitioner claims to be an Advocate practicing at Mysuru. One Mr. M. Nagaraju was the paternal uncle of the petitioner, who was also a practicing Advocate at Mysuru. He had established a sports club called "Panthers Sports Club' on property bearing Nos.3613, 3614, 3617, 3618/B New No.M-27/B, New Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore. He died on 26.12.2008 as a bachelor. The petitioner and other members of Panthers Sports Club conducted his last rites and his obsequies. The members of Panthers Sports Club registered themselves as a club under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the petitioner was elected as the President of the club. One of the senior members of the club named, Mr. Lakshmi Narayana handed over a sealed cover containing a Will of late Mr. M. Nagaraju to Mr. Ramachandra, another senior member of the club. The said Will contained directions as to how the activities of Panthers Sports Club should be continued. He also bequeathed the property bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 Nos.3613, 3614, 3617, 3618/B, New No.M-27/B, New Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysuru City in favour of the petitioner. (ii) The Panthers Sports Club through its Secretary filed O.S.No.31/2010 before the III Additional First Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mysuru, against the petitioner, respondent No.3 and obtained an order of temporary injunction. The suit was filed for declaration that by virtue of the Will dated 30.09.2007 executed by Mr. M. Nagaraju, the Panthers Sports Club is entitled to continue its activities in the aforesaid property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the activities of the club. The respondent No.4 filed vakalath in the said suit on 15.04.2010. He also filed an application seeking extension of time for filing a written statement on behalf of the respondent No.3. Later, respondent No.4 also filed an application on behalf of the respondent No.3 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC contending that the Junior Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that plaint should be returned. The application was allowed by the III Additional First Civil Judge, Mysuru by an order dated 25.04.2015. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 No.4 had taken personal interest and had made personal allegation against the petitioner at the time of addressing arguments. The Secretary of the Panthers Sports Club filed M.A.No.69/2015 before the IV Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Mysuru challenging the aforesaid order. Even in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal, the respondent No.4 had filed vakalath on behalf of the respondent No.3. (iii) Two years after filing of the suit in O.S.No.31/2010, the respondent No.4 filed a private complaint in PCR No.3/2012 on behalf of the respondent No.3. It was contended in the said complaint that petitioner along with four persons had forged the Will of Mr. M. Nagaraju. The petitioner has referred to certain statements made in the said private complaint, which purportedly were malicious and were directed against him. He contends that the averments made in the private complaint showed that the petitioner was dubbed as a wicked man. The petitioner contends that the private complaint was referred for investigation and the jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.27/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and the Trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 Court registered C.C.No.1907/2013, which is pending trial before the Principal First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru. The respondent No.4 thereafter filed an application under Section 301 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the prosecution. The petitioner who was the accused, did not oppose the said application and hence, was allowed in terms of an order dated 21.04.2016. After the charges were framed, though the case was posted for evidence, the respondent No.3 did not tender evidence. The Court issued NBW against the respondent No.3, yet he did not adduce evidence. (iv) When things stood thus, the respondent No.3 allegedly moved the State Government for appointing respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial. Immediately, the petitioner filed objections to the Director of Prosecution stating that the respondent No.4 was taking personal interest in the civil suit and private complaint, referred above and he was not an impartial person to conduct the trial and therefore, permission should not be granted. The petitioner received a reply from the Office of the Director of Prosecution that the State Government had already passed an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 order dated 21.12.2016 notifying the respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor. The petitioner thereafter, obtained the copies of the order appointing the respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor and has filed this petition challenging his appointment. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Government Order dated 12.12.2016 is in clear violation of the principles set out by a co- ordinate bench of this Court in Sri. K.V. Shiva Reddy vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary and Others [ILR 2005 KAR 4780]. He contends that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is not a speaking one. He contends that the note put up to the State Government states that respondent No.3 had agreed to bear the cost of legal expenses payable to the Special Public Prosecutor. He contends that it is the duty of the State Government to bear the remuneration of the Special Public Prosecutor and the fact that such fee is agreed to be paid by a private party for prosecuting his case, shows that the State Government had casually dealt with the request of respondent No.3. In this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukul Dalal and others vs. Union of India and others [1988 (3) SCC 144]. (ii) He contends that the respondent No.4 was highly prejudicial against the petitioner and if he was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor, there would be no free and fair trial and the same would be against the principles of natural justice. He contends that the respondent No.4 was instrumental in drafting and presenting the private complaint in PCR No.3/2012 and a reading of the private complaint showed that the respondent No.4 had used intemperate language against the petitioner and had made allegations, which resulted in character assassination. He also contends that the respondent No.4 had made several allegations against the petitioner that he is a mastermind in committing white collar crimes and that the petitioner may have caused the unnatural death of Mr. M. Nagaraju. He further contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed an application under Section 301 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court for assisting the prosecution, which was allowed. However, the respondent No.4 has not assisted the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 prosecution in any manner. He therefore, submits that the way in which respondent No.4 is appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor is much to be desired. 4. The petition is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who contends that the respondent No.3 was entitled to seek for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of Cr.P.C. He contends that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 after taking into account the request of the respondent No.3 as well as the facts of the case, felt it appropriate to appoint the respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor. He contends that there is no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent No.1 and hence, the impugned order cannot be challenged by the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner cannot have any grievance over the agency, which is going to prosecute him and hence, he has no right to challenge the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 adopted the submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader and submitted that the appointment of the Special - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 Public Prosecutor does not invade or affect the rights of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is not justiciable at the instance of the petitioner. 6. The respondent No.4 though served with the notice of this petition, is not represented. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 8. For the sake of convenience and for the sake of reference, Section 24 of Cr.P.C. is extracted below. "24. Public Prosecutors.— (1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 (2) The Central Government may appoint one or more Public Prosecutors, for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in any district or local area. (3) For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district: PROVIDED that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district. (4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4). (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (5), where in a State there exists a regular - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre: PROVIDED that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable person is available in such Cadre for such appointment that Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub- section,— (a) “regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers” means a Cadre of Prosecuting Officers which includes therein the post of a Public Prosecutor, by whatever name called, and which provides for promotion of Assistant Public Prosecutors, by whatever name called, to that post; (b) “Prosecuting Officer” means a person, by whatever name called, appointed to perform the functions of a Public Prosecutor, an Additional Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor under this Code. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 (7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (6), only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. (8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor: PROVIDED that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this sub-section. (9) For the purposes of sub-section (7) and sub-section (8), the period during which a person has been in practice as a pleader, or has rendered (whether before or after the commencement of this Code) service as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor or other Prosecuting Officer, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be the period during which such person has been in practice as an advocate." - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 9. (i) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. K.V. Shiva Reddy, referred supra, while considering a similar question held as follows. "36. The impugned order is an administrative order by the Government under Section 24(8) of the Code. It is a statutory order. If all State actions must be just, fair and reasonable, the Special Public Prosecutor would be under less duty as a functionary of the State to discharge his functions as a Public Prosecutor in an equally just, fair and reasonable manner irrespective of the outcome of the trial. In that sense, he is a part of the judicature system and an upright Public Prosecutor has no friends and foes in Court. He has no prejudices, preconceived notions, bias, hostility or his own axe to grind. He represents public interest, but is not a partisan in the narrow sense of the terms." (ii) It has also held as follows:- "37. The accused has no say in the matter of appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code. But the accused has a right to fair trial, which is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 justice. It is well known position in criminal jurisprudence that the State is the prosecutor and that is why the primary position is assigned to the public prosecutor, who is a part of fair trial. If his appointment is not made in public interest, not made in accordance with law, made for extraneous considerations, made with any mala fide intentions, made with intention to persecute the accused, such appointment offends the concept of fair trial, a fundamental right guaranteed to the accused. Fairness to the accused who faces prosecution is the raison d'etre of the legislative insistence on that score. Therefore, the accused has a right to challenge the appointment on any such grounds, though he has no say in the appointment. The Court is concerned only with the decision making process and not the decision." (iii) While considering the power of the State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, this Court held as follows:- "39. POINT NO.6: The power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor is a statutory power. Fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused. If a statutory right has been exercised offending a fundamental right, and when such action of the State is challenged before this Court by way of a Writ - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 Petition, on the ground of laches and delay and suppression of material facts, this Court cannot decline to entertain the writ petition, though all of them constitute a weighty ground for declining the discretionary relief under normal circumstances under Article 226 of the Constitution. But, when a Writ Petition is filed for enforcement of a fundamental right the relief cannot be denied on the ground of the aforesaid technical objections." 10. If the note sheet prepared by the State Government pursuant to the request made by the respondent No.3 for appointment of respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor, which is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition is perused, except putting up the file for appropriate orders, there was no application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain whether there was a real need for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. Even the impugned notification dated 21.12.2016 does not show any reasons or special circumstances for appointment of the respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor. A perusal of the complaint shows that the case was not something that a regular Public Prosecutor could not have conducted. Be that as it may, unless there are circumstances, which mandate or warrant the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and/or that the Public Prosecutor appointed by the State is not in a position to effectively represent the case of the respondent No.3, the exercise of power under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. in a rigmarole manner, is unacceptable. This Court has already taken a similar view in the case of Sri. K.V. Shiva Reddy, referred supra, where this Court had held that if there is non-application of mind in the process of appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, the accused is entitled to question the same. In that view of the matter, this petition will also have to be disposed of on similar lines. 11. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.12.2016 passed by respondent No.1 and the notification dated 21.12.2016 published by respondent No.1 as well as the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for appointing the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35750 WP No. 40196 of 2017 respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor, are quashed. (iii) However, it is open for the respondent No.3 to approach the respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a fresh application within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, setting out reasons for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. (iv) The respondent No.2 after considering the reasons shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months thereafter. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36