IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11198 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. DR. MADHUKAR B ANGUR S/O GUDDAPPA B. ANGUR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.235, 5TH BLOCK JAYANGAR, BANGALORE-41. 2. SMT. PRIYANKA ANGUR W/O DR. MADHUKAR G. ANGUR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.235, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-01.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H K SRIVASTHAVA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY Digitally signed by (HOME DEPARTMENT)

SUMA VIDHANA SOUDHA Location:

BANGALORE-01.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME DEPARTMENT)

VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01.

3. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION CAUVERY BHAVAN

6TH FLOOR BANGALORE-09.

4. SRI. C H. HANUMANTHRAYA ADVOCATE FATHER NAME OT KNOW TO PETITION AGED ABOUT MAJOR OXFORD SCHOOL BUILDING GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-09.

5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR MADIWALA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE-68.

6. SMT. USHA MADALLI D/O SRI. K A MADALLI R/AT NO. 48, BMT 1^ST STAGE

1^ST CROSS, 27^TH MAIN.

BANGALORE-68. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M S SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. DR. VANDANA P L, ADVOCATE FOR R6;

SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1-R3 & R5;

SRI. B M ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 26.02.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 24(8) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged an order dated

26.02.2016 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), vide notification bearing No.OE57 PPE 2016.

2. The respondent No.6 set the criminal law into motion by filing a report before the respondent No.5 about the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners. The respondent No.6 made a request before the respondent No.1 under Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial and participate in the proceedings. The respondent No.1 in terms of a notification dated 26.02.2016 bearing No.OE57 PPE 2016, appointed the respondent No.4 as a Special Public Prosecutor and also notified that the professional fee of the respondent No.4 shall be borne by the respondent No.6. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the notification, by which the respondent No.4 was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.1 is bound to apply its mind before considering the request by the respondent No.6 for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. He contends that the appointment under Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. is not a matter of course, but the respondent No.1 is bound to apply its mind to ascertain whether there is a need for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. He also contends that the case on hand is not too complicated for a regular public prosecutor to handle and therefore there was total non-application of mind in exercising discretion by respondent No.1. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayalalithaa and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others - 2013 SCC Online SC 901 and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.V.Shiva Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Others - ILR

2005 KAR 4780

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that a certain amount of application of mind is required before appointing a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. and the same is not a matter of course. He contends that the impugned notification does not indicate that respondent No.1 had considered whether there was a need to appoint a Spe