[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sanjana Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1029
1 WA-3027-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 13th 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1029
2 WA-3027-2025
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.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1029
3 WA-3027-2025
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
