Karnataka High Court
Sandeep N Prasad vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 9 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14062
CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9280 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SANDEEP N PRASAD
S/O NAGENDRA PRASAD B,
AGED 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.210,
BRIGADE VISTA,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 061.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: High AND:
Court of Karnataka
1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PULIKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU- 560 005.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14062
CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. VEENA K,
D/O M.SHANTHI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.201, II FLOOR,
S.M. ONE ORCHID,
MALL ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU- 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD 28.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXVIII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-29, MAYO HALL,
BENGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.25080/2023 AFFIRMING THE
ORDER DTD 29.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XI ACJM,
BENGALURU IN CC.NO.52280/2022 AND REJECT THE
APPLICATION DTD 05.06.2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 U/S 301(2) OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14062
CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. K. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question concurrent findings of two Courts answering application filed by respondent No.2, under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.52280/2022, claims to be aggrieved by the order of the concerned Court answering an application under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C., by which the concerned Court permits the complainant to assist the prosecution. The concerned Court permits the application filed by the complainant on the following reasons:
"ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED U/SEC.301(2) OF CR.P.C The defacto complainant has filed this application U/sec. 301(2) of Cr.P.C to permit the complainant to engage a counsel to assist the prosecution in conducting trial.
2. Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed detailed objection to the application.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:14062 CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. I have heard the the Ld. Counsel for the defecto complainant and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. The Pulakeshinagar Police have filed charge- sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 of IPC. On going through the case of the prosecution, and the averments made in the application and also considering the objection filed by the accused, this court is of the opinion that, the complainant has grounds to allow the application as prayed. In case if the application is allowed no hardship is caused to the accused and in order to provide an opportunity and to meet the ends of justice, the application filed by the complainant is deserves be to allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The application filed by the defecto complainant U/sec. 301(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The complainant is permitted to engage a counsel to assist the prosecution as provided U/sec. 301(2) of Cr.P.C.
For charge by: 12.01.2024."
The concerned Court allows the application under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C., permitting the complainant to assist the prosecution. It is only to assist the prosecution and not take assistance of somebody else in the prosecution.
3. The said order is challenged by the accused before the Court of session in Criminal Revision petition No.25080/2023. The Court of Session by a detailed order rejects the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order, -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14062 CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025 HC-KAR which permitted the complainant to assist the prosecution. The order of the Revisional Court reads as follows:
"6. My findings on the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 - In the negative;
POINT No.2 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1 :- The revision petitioner has filed present petition challenging order passed by XI ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru dated 29.08.2023, in so far as allowing an application filed by respondent No.2 under Sec. 301(2) of Cr.P.C.
8. It is specifically contended that, respondent No.2 herein prime accused in Cr.No.68/2021 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station. If application filed by respondent No.2 is allowed. There will be miscarriage of justice.
Further, order passed allowing application filed by respondent No.2 will act as a license for respondent No.2 to tamper witnesses involved in both cases.
9. On careful perusal of records, it is pertinent to note here, respondent No.2 herein Smt. Veena K., being first informant lodged complaint against revision petitioner herein and based on same Pulikeshinagar Police station registered in Cr.No.361/2021 for offences punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC. Said complaint lodged by respondent No.2 received on 28.09.2021 at 11.00 a.m.
10. It is further evident from record that, after lapse of 3 days from lodging complaint by respondent No.2 herein Sri K. Cheeranjeevi show is Joint Secretary, Karnataka State Health and Family Welfare Department on 01.10.2021 filed complainant against respondent No.2 herein and revision petitioner herein. Based on said complaint, Vidhana Soudha Police Station registered case in Cr.No.68/2021.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:14062 CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. It is fact that, respondent No.2 herein being defacto complaint has filed application under Sec.301(2) of Cr.P.C., before learned trial court in CC.No.52280/2022 seeking permission to assist prosecution in conducting trial. Said application filed by respondent No.2 herein allowed by learned trial court and respondent No.2 herein is permitted to engage counsel to assist prosecution. It is also fact that, to said application revision petitioner herein filed detailed objection.
12. Now, it is main contention of revision petitioner that, respondent No.2 herein it is prime accused in Cr.No.68/2021 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station, if she is permitted to engage counsel on her behalf to assist prosecution it will act as license for respondent No.2 to tamper witnesses involved in both which are CC.No.52280/2022 and cases CC.No.409/2022.
13. As already discussed, case filed by respondent No.2 herein and another case filed by Cheeranjeevi K., are not case and counter case. Prior to filing case against respondent No.2, she had already filed case in Cr.No.361/2021 of Pulikeshinagar Police Station against revision petitioner herein. Looking into nature of offence as alleged by respondent No.2, learned trial court in its wisdom has allowed an application filed by respondent No.2 and permitted to engage counsel on her behalf to assist prosecution. As per provisions of Sec.301(2) of Cr.P.C., role of private person who instruct a pleader to prosecute in case in court is very limited. Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor leads prosecution. The pleader instructed by private person act under their direction. The counsel engaged by respondent No.2 is to only assist prosecution.
14. Further it is to be noted here, CC.No.52280/2022 and CC.No.409/2022 are not pending before same court and it is not case of revision petitioner both cases are being conducted by same Assistant Public Prosecutor. Under these circumstances, contention of revision petitioner herein an allowing application filed by respondent No.2 will act as license for respondent No.2 to tamper witnesses involved in both cases is not -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14062 CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025 HC-KAR sustainable. Because, it is learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who leads prosecution in both cases independently. As act itself provides, respondent No.2 to engage counsel to assist prosecution, learned trial court after taking into note of facts in circumstances of case in its wisdom has allowed application filed by respondent No.2 under Sec.301(2) of Cr.P.C.
15. The learned trial court for revision petitioner has relied upon decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in AIR 1966 Mysore 293 in case of U. Ahmed Hussain and Others Vs. Inspector (Tea Waste Control) Tea Board India, Nilgiri, wherein it is held that, denial of opportunities to accused to prove his case is improper and illegal. Herein the case, question involved is whether order passed by learned trial court in allowing application filed by revision petitioner under As such, Sec.301(2) of Cr.P.C., is proper or not. principles laid down in above decision not aptly applicable to case on hand.
16. Further it is to be noted here, in my considered view order passed by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo-hall Unit, Bangalore dated 29.08.2023 on application filed by revision petitioner under Sec.301(2) of Cr.P.C., is just, proper and reasonable, no interference is warranted with the well considered order rendered by learned trial court. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the order passed by the learned Magistrate do not suffers from impropriety resulting in irregularity. Therefore, order under revision does not deserves to be interfered with. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, point No.1 answered in negative.
17. POINT No.2: In view of my finding on the above Points, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Revision Petition filed under Section 399(3) and 401 of Cr.P.C., by the Revision Petitioner is hereby dismissed.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14062 CRL.P No. 9280 of 2025 HC-KAR An order passed by learned XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mayohall, Bengaluru in CC.No.52280/2022 dated 29.08.2023 is hereby confirmed, consequently the Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Send back the records if any along with copy of this order to learned Trail Court."
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would now seek to place reliance upon the same judgment, that he placed reliance upon, before the concerned Courts, that is on the face of it, inapplicable.
5. Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. is clear that it is only for assisting the prosecution. Complainant can assist the prosecution and not take assistance of another counsel. The accused cannot be said to be put to prejudice for the reason that the assisting order is passed.
6. Finding no merit, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5