Xxxx vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                          -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:20174
                                                  CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026


                HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                        BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                          CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5650 OF 2026


                BETWEEN:

                XXXXX
                XXXXX
                XXXXX
                XXXXX


                                                            ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE)


                AND:

                1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by             BY MADDUR P.S.
SANJEEVINI J          REPRESENTED BY
KARISHETTY
Location:             STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
High Court of
Karnataka             (HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU)

                2.    SATISH B.K.,
                      S/O KARIYAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                      R/AT BEKKALALI VILLAGE,
                      KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TQ,
                      SHIVAPUR, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA,
                      KARNATAKA - 571 425.
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:20174
                                     CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026


HC-KAR




3.   PUTTASWAMY
     S/O MASTI KULLEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
     BEKKALALI VILLAGE,
     KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
     MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 425.

4.   LOKESH KUMAR V.,
     S/O LATE VENKATARAMU
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
     K.GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
     MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA
     KARNATAKA - 571 446.


                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;
     SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)


     THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2026
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE FOR POCSO CASE (FTSC-I) AT MANDYA IN
SPL.C.C.NO.223/2022, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.120/2022
OF MADDUR POLICE STATION, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 354-D,
376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 450, 366, 506, 420 OF IPC AND SEC.4,
6 AND 12 OF THE POCSO ACT AND PERMIT THE
PETITIONER/VICTIM COUNSEL TO BE HEARD BY THE LEARNED
TRIAL COURT WHILE ASSISTING THE PROSECUTION AND
PARTICIPATE IN PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:20174
                                       CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026


HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, the de facto complainant is before this

Court calling in question an order dated 27.03.2026, passed by

the Additional District and Sessions Judge for POCSO Case

(FTSC-I), Mandya, in Spl.C.C.No.223/2022 (arising out of

Crime No.120/2022), by which the concerned Court rejects the

application of the petitioner seeking permission to engage a

counsel of her choice, assist the prosecution and to participate

in the proceedings.

2. Heard Sri Chandrashekar R.P., learned counsel for

petitioner, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Lakshmikanth K., learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A case in Spl.C.C.No.223/2022 is being tried before the

Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge for POCSO

Case (FTSC-I), Mandya, arising out of Crime No.120/2022 of

Maddur Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections

NC: 2026:KHC:20174

HC-KAR

354D, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 450, 366, 506 and 420 of the

IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The issue is not with regard to the

merit of the matter. An application is preferred by the victim -

de facto complainant seeking permission to engage services of

a counsel and trial to be conducted at the hands of the said

counsel. The concerned Court rejects the application by the

following order:

"7. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:

i. Whether the application filed by the victim's counsel under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is maintainable?

ii. Whether the documents can be taken on record at this stage?

iii. What Order?

8. My findings on the above points are as under:

Point No. i: In the Negative, Point No. ii: In the Negative, Point No. iii: As per final order for the following:

Reasons

9. Point No.i: It is not in dispute that the application is filed by the learned counsel for the victim independently and not by the Public Prosecutor. As per Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. and proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C., the role of the victim's counsel is limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor.

NC: 2026:KHC:20174

HC-KAR

10. In Rekha Murarka case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the victim's counsel cannot conduct prosecution independently and must act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In the present case the learned Special Public Prosecutor has not filed the application. There is no concurrence from the Special Public Prosecutor as well. Therefore, the application filed independently by the victim's counsel exceeds the permissible scope of assistance and is not maintainable.

11. Point No.ii: Section 294 Cr.P.C. is intended to facilitate admission or denial of documents already on record so as to dispense with formal proof. Section 294 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

Section. 294 Cr.P.C:No formal proof of certain documents:

(1)Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution of the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2)The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3)Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed;

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved

12. In the present case the documents sought to be produced were not part of prosecution evidence. They were not marked through any witness. The evidence stage is already closed. Thus, invoking Section 294 Cr.P.C. to introduce fresh documents at the stage of final

NC: 2026:KHC:20174

HC-KAR

arguments is legally impermissible. Allowing such a course would amount to reopening the prosecution case indirectly which may cause serious prejudice to the accused and violate principles of fair trial. Sandeep Kumar Bafna recognizes the right of the complainant to be heard but does not permit independent prosecution or introduction of evidence dehors the procedure established under law. On the other hand, the principles laid down in Rekha Murarka case squarely apply to the present case.

13. In view of the above discussions the application filed by the victim's counsel under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Section 294 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to introduce new documents at the stage of final arguments by the learned counsel for the victim that too without concurrence of the Special Public Prosecutor this case. Accordingly, the Points No.(i) and (ii) are answered in the Negative.

14. Point No.iii:- In view of my answers to Points No.(i) to (iii) for the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The application filed by the learned counsel for the victim under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

It is clarified that the learned counsel for the victim is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor in accordance with law and may advance arguments within the permissible scope.

Call on 02.04.2026

Sd/-

27/3/26 Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 (POCSO), Mandya."

(Emphasis added)

NC: 2026:KHC:20174

HC-KAR

The concerned Court would follow the judgment of the

Apex Court rendered in the case of REKHA MURARKA VS.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER reported in

(2020) 2 SCC 474 and while rejecting the application clarifies

that the counsel for the victim is permitted to assist the Public

Prosecutor in accordance with law and may advance arguments

within the permissible scope.

4. It is un-understandable as to how the victim - de facto

complainant would become aggrieved by the said order. The

impugned order is in strict consonance with law. Permission

has been granted to the de facto complainant to assist the

public prosecutor and also to advance arguments. What is

sought is an independent representation of the de facto

complainant, which cannot be permitted. Therefore, there is no

warrant of interference with the impugned order passed by the

concerned Court, which is in accordance with law.

5. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands

rejected.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Nvj/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36