Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20174
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 10 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
BY MADDUR P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(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.
Digitally
signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 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
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20174
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026
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. | |||
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20174
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026
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 |
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20174
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026
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)
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20174
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2026
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