IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(CRL.) NO. 334 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SUSHITHA
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. LATE PRADIN, KANARA HOUSE , TC 37/2336 (1),
KALAGRAMAM 2B, KODUNGANNUR P.O., VATTIYURKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013
BY ADVS.
K.N.ABHILASH
M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH
SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
RITHIK S.ANAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 STATE POLICE CHIEF,
KERALA POLICE QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THRISSUR RURAL, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
IRINGALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 121
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 570
BY ADV.SREEJA V. - SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO. 334 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of her request for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute S.C. No.216/2020 on the file Sessions Court, Thrissur. The case above was registered and investigated in connection with the murder of the husband of the petitioner by the accused persons. Ext.P1 is the First Information Report and Ext.P2 is the Final Report submitted therein. The aforesaid case is now pending before the Sessions Court, Thrissur.
2. Heard Sri. Abhilash K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the Government has issued a Circular bearing Reg. No.264/C4/2017/Home dated 18.09.2017, formulating the guidelines to be governed in the matter of appointment of a Special Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. It was also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, as per Ext.P4, the Director WP(CRL.) NO. 334 OF 2022 3 General of Prosecution (DGP), has taken into consideration the request of the petitioner to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the light of the guidelines prescribed in this regard as per the above Circular. After elaborately considering all the said aspects, it was found that the aforesaid case does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the guidelines stipulated as per the said circular and accordingly, it was opined that this is not a fit case where the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is required. Based on the same, the request made by the petitioner was rejected, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to appoint a lawyer of her choice to assist the prosecution as envisaged under the proviso of Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon Ext.P8 communication issued by a lawyer of his choice wherein the lawyer concerned has expressed his willingness to conduct the case without any remuneration. It was also pointed out that one of the reasons stated by the respondents for rejecting the request of the petitioner is the WP(CRL.) NO. 334 OF 2022 4 additional financial burden that may cause to State's exchequer, and it was also pointed out that since the lawyer concerned has already expressed his willingness to prosecute the matter without any remuneration in this regard, the grievance cited by the Government stands redressed. In such circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer sought by the petitioner is to be allowed.
5. When going through the contents of Ext.P4, it is seen that the case of the petitioner and the request made by her were elaborately considered by the D.G.P. in the light of the guidelines formulated by the Government in this regard. The petitioner could not point out any materials indicating that her case falls under any of the categories mentioned in the Circular referred to therein by the D.G.P. The contention of the petitioner that additional financial burden was the reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner is also not sustainable because of the fact that Ext.P4 contains a detailed examination of the prospects of appointing a Special Prosecutor in this case based on the guidelines in this regard. On WP(CRL.) NO. 334 OF 2022 5 examination of the entire materials on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Government in this regard, as it is seen supported by valid reasons.
Accordingly, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to appoint a lawyer of her choice to assist the prosecution in this case.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE SCS WP(CRL.) NO. 334 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 334/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.244/2019 DATED 15.04.2019 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC NO.216/2020 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER , LAW DEPARTMENT STATE OF KERALA DATED 29.11.2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION OF KERALA TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT KERALA Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THE CHIEF MINSTER OF KERALA Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.12.2020 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.03.2022 ISSUED BY ADV K.N.PRASANTH