AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.529 of 2008 registered at the Chingavanam Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420,
468 read with 120B of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.617 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery. Apprehending that the
prosecution will not be conducted in a proper and efficient manner, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, seeking appointment of a Special
Public Prosecutor. By Exhibit P4 judgment, that writ petition was disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider the request made by the
petitioner, for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor or an Advocate to assist the APP, as the case may be, in accordance with Circular
No.264/C4/2017 dated 18.9.2017 of the Government (Home Department). Accordingly, the Government considered the request and passed Exhibit P8
order, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the finding in Exhibit P8 that, the case on hand does not come under any of the categories of cases
mentioned in Clause 3(a) and (b) of the Government circular. Drawing attention to the Circular produced as Exhibit P5, learned counsel contended
that the petitioner's case squarely falls under Clause 3(b)(ii), which is extracted hereunder;
“3(b)(ii). Offences against property having wide ramifications such as money chain delaings, cheating cases/land grab cases, land mafia cases or
other white collar crimes involving fabrication of records, documents etc, apartment frauds, investment fraud etc.â€
The other major contention urged is that the direction in Exhibit P4 to consider the alternative request for appointment of an Advocate to assist the
APP has not been considered or even adverted to in Ext.P8.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, who refuted the contentions, by no stretch of imagination would the petitioner's case fall within any of
the categories in Exhibit P5.
A reading of Exhibit P1 complaint would show that the grievance is essentially regarding illegal recovery of a vehicle purchased by the petitioner
under hire purchase agreement. Being so, I find substantial merit in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that no public interest is involved in
the case and that it does not fall among any of the categories mentioned in Exhibit P5. The reliance placed on Clause 3(b)(ii) is found to be misplaced,
since only offences against property having 'wide ramifications' fall under that category. As far as the contention based on the direction in Exhibit P4,
to consider the request for appointment of an Advocate to assist the APP is concerned, the petitioner will have to ventilate his grievance regarding
violation of the direction by initiating contempt action against the respondents. It is settled law that this Court will not issue a mandamus to implement
the direction in an earlier judgment. For the aforementioned reasons, I find no merit in the challenge against Exhibit P8.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.