IMPORTANT POINT
A private individual can conduct prosecution in a Magistrate's Court under Section 302 of the CrPC, provided the court grants permission, distinguishing this from the role in Sessions Courts.

ORDER :

(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 05-06-2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara in C.C.No.44 of 2014 arising out of crime in Crime No.294 of 2013.

2. Heard Sri C.V. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioners are accused 1 to 6 and the 2nd respondent is the complainant. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A marital discard leads the complainant to register a crime in Crime No.294 of 2013. The police after investigation file a charge sheet and the matter is being tried by the concerned Court in C.C.No.44 of 2014. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the matter before the concerned Court, but it concerns a particular order passed during the trial. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been duly appearing before the concerned Court and are represented before the trial Court on every date of hearing. When such was the stage set down for hearing of applications including the one filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of the CrPC, the 2nd respondent/complainant files an application under Section 301 of the CrPC through a private counsel along with a letter from the prosecution/Department. Later the said application was withdrawn as not pressed and another application is filed under Section 302(1) of the CrPC. Objections were called for from the petitioners to the application so filed. The petitioners have filed objections thereto. The concerned Court allows the application filed under Section 302(1) of the CrPC in terms of the impugned order. It is that order that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri C.V.Srinivasa would vehemently contend that Section 302 of the CrPC is akin to Section 24 of the CrPC and both are identical. If Section 24 requires grave necessity of appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, it is open to the Government to appoint one under Section 24 of the CrPC and same goes with Section 302. As a matter of course, the complainant should not be permitted to engage a private Advocate, unless it is so permitted in an application being filed before the concerned Court and the concerned Court passing necessary orders in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that Sections 24 and 302 CrPC operate on different circumstance. The rigour under Section 24 is not necessary to be followed under Section 302. He would submit that nonetheless there should be an order from the hands of the learned Magistrate in that regard.

6. The learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant would submit that the Public Prosecutor is not properly conducting the proceedings. Therefore, an application or requisition had to be made to the State. It is then the Government permits the trial to be conducted by a private counsel under Section 302 of the CrPC. No fault can be found with the said action is the submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass as it requires interpretation of Sections 301 and 302 of the CrPC. They read as follows:

“301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors.—(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.

(2) If in any such case any private person instruct