IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the victim or somebody on behalf of the victim can request for appointment of a lawyer of his/her choice for appointment of Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor, and the appropriate Government should consider the representation in an appropriate case.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayers are as under:

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents to take decisions on exhibits P2, P3, P4 and P6 representations, seeking appointment of the public prosecutor, in a time-bound manner.

2. Call for all the records lead to exhibit P6, issue a writ of certiorari, and quash the same.

3. Issue an appropriate writ to the respondents 1 to 7 to withdraw exhibit P7 order of appointment, published in Gazette notification, dated 2.11.2022.

4. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the appropriate stage.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the CBI that, as per Sections 2 and 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, CBI was entrusted with investigation of this crime and the investigation started and final report filed arraying accused Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, as directed by the court, further investigation has been going on to find out involvement of any other persons. According to the learned Senior counsel for the CBI, the victim or the representatives of the victim have no right to seek appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and the same is absolutely a power vested with the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. It is also submitted that since the investigation is now at the helm of CBI, Central Government alone has the power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in this matter. It is also submitted that the victim's right in the matter of appointment of a lawyer of his choice is subject to proviso to Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. He has highlighted the decision of this Court in Jigesh P. and Another vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2013 (1) KHC 601 with reference to paragraph No. 23 and the same reads as under:

“After the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to cite one more decision, as reported in Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another, 2011 KHC 4206 : 2011 (4) SCC 1 : 2011 (1) KHC SN 45 : 2011 (1) KLT 973 : ILR 2011 (1) Ker. 1001 : AIR 2011 SC 1267. That was a case with regard to the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commission under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, where “unimpeachable institution and personal integrity” was held as of paramount consideration. The factual position dealt with in the said case with reference to the relevant provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and the recommendation made by the High Power Committee without considering the sanction already given by the Government to prosecute the person concerned under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120(b) of IPC. After elaborate discussion, it was held as an instance that impaired the recommendation of the Committee, to be held as “non est” and accordingly, it was set aside. What has been highlighted in the said decision all throughout, is in respect of the transparency of the institution/CVC and the proceedings and it no way deals with the requirements of a person to be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor u/s 24(8) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners are not justified in drawing analogy to the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor u/s 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. to the selection and appointment of the “Central Vigilance Commission” under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and there is an ocean of difference between the requirements and the duty to be performed under the two different enactments. As it stands so, the reliance sought to be placed on the above verdict is rather wrong and misconceived. This Court is of the firm view that, it is no