DINESH VRUJLAL BORICHANGAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the Notice dated 01. 03. 2005 issued by Registrar, Joint District Judge Court, Veraval against the present petitioner in Sessions Case No. 66 of 2004 under the provision of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is at ANNEXURE D to the present petition and also to quash and set aside the direction issued in paragraph 4 of the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 28. 02. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Verval which is at ANNEXURE C to the present petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 30. 07. 2004 the petitioner filed a complaint being C. R. No. I-129 of 2004 before Veraval City Police Station against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 143,148,149, 452, 307, 436, 427, 337, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner submitted that notice was issued with personal prejudice with the petitioner as on earlier occasions the learned Judge had meted out arbitrary and discriminatory treatment to the petitioner. He further submitted that order dated 28. 02. 2005 and notice dated 01. 03. 2005 were not required to be passed on the ground that petitioner identified one respondent No. 6 and the names of the other accused were also perfectly given by the petitioner as the complainant but the persons who were not named by the petitioner in the complaint were arrested as accused by the police. The petitioner, therefore, rightly did not involve by falsely identifying those accused in the Court. The petitioner-complainant has filed the said complaint being an individual, however, the learned Judge has referred him as Additional Public Prosecutor. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has made efforts to bring the Investigation Officer under pressure to bring certain evidence on record. On the contrary, the prosecution has not examined the necessary eye-witnesses in the present case but the petitioner has never influenced the prosecution to lead evidence in a particular style so as to benefit the petitioner-complainant in the case and the petitioner-complainant has kept himself at a distance in this case from all concerned to ensure that accused should not feel that his position is affecting the position of the case. 2. 6 Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that observations which are made are contemplated as a lawyer and that conduct as a lawyer is reflected in the order. Section 250 reads as under :