C H Ravikumar vs The Director Of Prosecution
2021 Latest Caselaw 6886 Kant

                          1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

   WRIT PETITION NO.11377 OF 2019(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
C H RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE HUCHANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT CHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI K N SANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
6TH FLOOR, K.H.B.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 009

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KUNIGAL POLICE,

RESONDENT NO.1 AND 2
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.

3 . D KRISHNA KUMAR
S/O LATE DASE GOWDA,
AGED 55 YEARS
                           2




RESIDING AT KANNAGUNI VILLAGE,
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.

4 . SHANKAR GOWDA B N
S/O NAGARAJAIAH,
(SHOWN AS D SHANKAR @
B.N.S.GOWDA IN TRIAL
COURT JUDGMENT)
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.142,
6TH MAIN, HANUMAGIRI HILLS LAYOUT,
AREHALLI, BANGALORE

5 . B.N. JAGADISH
S/O D NAGARAJAIAH,
AGED 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.36,
2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
BSK III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 0085.

6 . MR. VENKATA RAO., B.A., B.L
ADVOCATE
(RETD JOINT DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS)
OFF/RES: No.6, 1ST CROSS, II MAIN ROAD,
SHAKTHIANAPATHY NAGAR,
8TH MAIN ROAD, IV BLOCK,
BASAVESWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-1 TO APPOINT MR. VENKATA RAO, B.A.B.L.,
R-6 AS SEPARATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO ARGUE THE
MATTER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN CR. APPEAL
                            3




No.45/2018 ON THE FILE OF 6TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMKUR.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner the

complainant is, as to non-consideration of his request

for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for

conducting the criminal case in question.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents 1

& 2 opposes the writ petition, contending that, unless

cogent reasons are forthcoming, the request of the

kind cannot be considered. Having so contended,

now, graciously agrees to instruct his client to look

into the grievance of the petitioner in a time bound

way. This is a happy thing to happen.

In the above circumstances, this Petition is

disposed off directing the first respondent to consider

petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2018 vide

Annexure-A within a period of eight weeks. All

contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN