IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 3027 of 2025

SMT. SANJANA CHOUHAN

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate through VC with Ms. Nikita Biwal -

Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rahul Sethi - AAG for respondents/State.

ORDER also the law in this regard. He argued that the impugned order appointing the Special Prosecutor is arbitrary, without application of mind and contrary to the provisions of Sec.24(8) of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the impugned order does not record any reason for the appointment of a special public prosecutor. There is no material to show the existence of special circumstances warranting such an appointment. The appointment has been made at the instance of the private complainant/interested party, as the special prosecutor was representing the complainant as well as the witnesses in the same case.

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

The present Writ Appeal is being filed against the order dated

23.7.2025 passed in WP No.21729/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge,

whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

The appellant has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order of appointment of Special Public Prosecutor u/S.24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for prosecuting the case on behalf of the prosecution in the pending trial in

Crime No.9/2016.

Counsel for appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in

dismissing the petition without appreciating the provisions of Sec.24(8) and

Learned Addl. Advocate General for respondents/State supports the impugned order and submits that the State government has discretion to appoint a special public prosecutor in aan ppropriate case.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

It is well settled that a public prosecutor represents the State and is expected to act fairly, objectively and independently to assist the court in the administration of justice. Appointment of a special public prosecutor is the exception and not the rule and can be justified only when special or compelling circumstances exist. Our view gets fortified by the judgment passed in the case of Mukul Dalal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 144. The impugned order does not record any reasons necessitating the appointment of a special public prosecutor. No material was placed on record to demonstrate the complexity or sensitivity of the case beyond ordinary parameters. The order appears to have been passed solely on the request of the complainant which is impermissible.

With regard to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in WA No.158/2015, we find that the facts of the said case were different. In the said case, there was already an appointment of a Special Prosecutor and subsequently, the said Advocate was changed. The petitioner in the said case does not challenge the original order and, therefore, the co-ordinate bench declined to interfere with the order of appointment of the Special Prosecutor. Thus, the aforesaid judgment would not render any assistance to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.7.2025, passed in WP No.21729/2019 Annexure A/1 is set aside and the impugned order dated 18.7.2019 (Annexure P/1 to the writ petition) is also quashed. However, it is made clear that the proceedings which have already been conducted by the said prosecutor would not be nullified and liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order of appointment of a prosecutor in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal is allowed and disposed of.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE VM