Kerala High Court
Sushitha vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
