- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20260 WP No. 11240 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.11240 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SUKUMAR J S/O LATE JAYAVELU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, LAW PRACTIONER, RESIDING AT NO.23, PADMA NIVAS, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, Y.G.PALYA, BENGALURU-560 047. SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) &PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK BABU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE SERVICE-B) VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION 6TH FLOOR, KAVERY BHAVANA, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20260 WP No. 11240 of 2026 K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 4. SMT.S.M. SUPRIYA W/O S/SUSHANTH, D/O MANIMARAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.217, ROAD NO.05, DEFENCE LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 097 5. SRI. SURYANARAYANA SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001 &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 18.03.2024 SEEKING TO QUASH ORDER DATED BEARING NO. OE41PPE2024 (E) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.02 APPOINTING RESPONDENT NO.05 AS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO CONDUCT CASE IN C.C.NO.32717/2022 VIDE AT ANNEXTURE-A. (B) TO ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION THAT, THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WITH COSTS, TO MEET THE CANNON OF JUSTICE AND ENDS OF EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20260 WP No. 11240 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused - father-in-law assailing the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 appointing respondent No.5 as a Special Public Prosecutor in C.C.No.32717/2022. 2. The petitioner and his son are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.32717/2022 and are presently facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 326, 504, 506 and 354(A)(4) read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein allegations of cruelty, assault and demand of dowry are levelled against the accused persons, and the matter is now seized by the jurisdictional Magistrate for trial. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20260 WP No. 11240 of 2026 3. The gist of the petitioner9s grievance in the present writ petition is directed against the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor at the instance of the complainant. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the complainant approached the competent authority seeking such appointment and, acting upon the said request, the authority has appointed respondent No.5 as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case. The petitioner, being an accused in the said proceedings, calls in question the legality and propriety of such appointment. 4. Elaborating the grievance, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Special Public Prosecutor so appointed is not effectively prosecuting the matter and, on the contrary, is contributing to unnecessary adjournments, thereby protracting the trial. However, when queried by this Court as to whether the order sheet of the trial Court is placed on record to substantiate the allegation of repeated adjournments attributable to the Special Public Prosecutor, the learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20260 WP No. 11240 of 2026 counsel fairly concedes that no such material, including the order sheet, is produced before this Court. 5. Be that as it may, even assuming that there is some substance in the allegation that the prosecution is not being conducted with due diligence and that adjournments are being sought, this Court is of the considered view that the appropriate remedy lies before the trial Court itself. It is always open for the petitioner and the co-accused to bring such instances to the notice of the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions for expeditious conduct of the trial, including refusal of unwarranted adjournments and adherence to the mandate of speedy trial. 6. Insofar as the challenge to the very appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor at the instance of the complainant, when made - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20260 WP No. 11240 of 2026 by the competent authority in accordance with law, does not, by itself, furnish a cause for interference unless a case of patent illegality or malafides is demonstrated, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 7. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court, in earlier proceedings, has fixed a timeline of nine (9) months for disposal of the criminal case is taken note of. It is open to the petitioner to bring the said direction to the notice of the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders to ensure adherence to the timeline and expeditious disposal of the case. Reserving liberty to the petitioner and other accused to work out their remedies before the trial Court in the manner indicated above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18