Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2008
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.-M No.24687 of 2005 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No.24687 of 2005
Date of Decision: September 05, 2008
Rajinder Sharma
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of order dated 15.10.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and order dated 13.1.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed Criminal Misc.-M No.24687 of 2005 :2: by Addl.Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
Vide Annexure P-5, the prayer of the petitioner for dis- allowing Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, Advocate from representing the complainant and for participating in the trial has been declined on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Through order, Annexure P-6, the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge is rejected and so he has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to impugn the said orders.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner could not say anything substantial to impugn the order whereby his prayer to debar an Advocate to represent the complainant has been declined. He also could not point out to any provision of law whereby such an application can be maintained seeking to debar a counsel to represent his opposite party. No reasons otherwise are disclosed in the application or in the order for which this prayer was filed.
The petitioner had prayed for his discharge only on the ground that investigation in this case was directed to be verified by the gazetted officer before submission of challan by this court, which has not been done and hence the petitioner deserves to be discharged. This court on 30.4.1997 had disposed of Criminal Misc.Petition No.9239-M of 1997 with the following observations:-
"Present petition stands disposed of with the directions to the State that the Investigation of the F.I.R. No.338 dated 18th March, 1997 under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. registered in Central Police Station, Sector 15, Faridabad must be verified by a Gazetted Officer, before the submission of the challan."Criminal Misc.-M No.24687 of 2005 :3:
The conceded position is that zimni Nos.50 to 71 were verified by Shri Balbir Singh Baniwal, DSP. The grievance of the petitioner is that zimni from 72 to 91 were not so verified and thus the challan, which has been submitted, cannot be termed as having been verified by the gazetted officer. It is further pointed out that for this very reason, the then Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad had directed fresh investigation, but still the challan has been re- submitted against the petitioner. Concededly, the challan has been re-submitted on the report of DSP (Headquarters) dated 30.11.2002. The order impugned has been passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Faridabad before whom the order dated 15.10.2004 was under
challenge. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad had only observed in his order that question in regard to his discharge would be disposed of at the time of argument on charge along with the other accused. Against this order, the petitioner had filed a revision, which was held not to be maintainable as the order impugned was an interlocutory order. Addl.Sessions Judge, Faridabad was right in observing that trial court should expeditiously deal with the case since it has been registered as back as on 18.3.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is really not understood. The only direction issued by this court was that the gazetted officer was to verify the investigation. There was no direction that gazetted officer was to sign the zimnis. As can be discerned from the orders, the challan against the petitioner has been submitted on a report of DSP (Headquarters) and hence no violation of any order is seen. Interference in the method and manner of investigation by the court generally is not called for and as such I do not see any infirmity in the orders impugned in the Criminal Misc.-M No.24687 of 2005 :4: present petition. To me, it seems to be misconceived. Same is accordingly dismissed.
September 5, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE