RAVINDRA GIRIYAGHEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as well as the order of issuance of non -bailable warrant of arrest against him dated 17.8.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Hajipur Nagar P.S. Case No. 48 of 2006 and G.R. Case No. 268 of 2006.

(2.) IT has been submitted that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the Patna High Court and Saroj Kumari is his client. Her husband also admits that the house in question belongs to his wife (the client of the petitioner), therefore, no case of house trespass is made out against the petitioner. One Rajendra Rai had lddged an FIR against one Mr. Ajay Verma vide Hajipur P.S. Case No. 48/2006 under Sections 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that in the property dispute in his family his wife, daughter and sons in collusion with Mr. Ajay Verma are trying to grab his property. The FIR bearing Hajipur Sadar Thana P.S. Case No. 48/2006 under Sections 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is the counter blast of FIR bearing Hajipur Sadar P.S. case No. 45/2006 under Sections 448, 504 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Zonal I.G. in page 21 of his report accepted that the petitioner was the lawyer of Smt. Saroj Kumari. The Zonal I.G. had made the said report on the basis of the materials collected during investigation concerning the petitioner. Thereafter the Zonal I.G.of Muzaffarpur made the report which had been submitted on 17.8.2006 at 5 p.m. by the Officer -in -charge of the P.S. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate permitting him to arrest the petitioner along with another named accused Ajoy Verma. The Officer -in -charge of Hajipur Nagar P.S. made an application for altering the offences in the instant case on 17.8.2006. It has been submitted that the offences have been altered on the same material. The application was allowed on the same day. The Inspector and Officer -in -charge of Hajipur City police station made a requisition on the same day i.e., 17.8.2006 at 5 p.m. to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur (Vaishali) to the effect that as per investigation and supervision note finding the accused persons responsible for the offence under Sections 177, 182, 203, 352,353, 355, 447, 448, 451 and 504, IPC, their arrest had become necessary and accordingly prayed for issuance of non -bailable warrant of arrest and process of attachment so that they may surrender in the Court. Thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali vide order dated 17.8.2006 without applying his judicial mind allowed the petition of the Investigating Officer and ordered for issuance of non -bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons including the petitioner. It has been submitted that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it apparent that warrant of arrest may be issued by the learned Magistrate only in case of proclaimed offender, escaped convict and the accused person of non -bailable offence who is evading arrest for his production in Court. Learned counsel further submitted that it is settled law that a lawyer has a general authority to act in the interest of his client and for that he can not be alleged or charged. By the provisions of Sections 29. and 30 of Advocates Act, 1961 the Advocates have been conferred rights to practice not only in all Courts including the Supreme Court and also before any Tribunal or persons legally authorised to take evidence and also before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice. Therefore the rights of an advocate to practice profession of law is a statutory right. Actually there was ulterior motive prevailing in the mind of high police officers as the petitioner had argued PIL case vide CWJC No. 8260/2006 against the present DGP. The present action of high police officials is nothing but only to take revenge so that the matter of PIL may not be raked up again.

(3.) IN this connection a reference may be made to Annexure 5 which is a letter dated 17.8.2006 from the Officer -in -charge of Hajipur Town P.s. addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaishali at Hajipur. In it a prayer has been made for issuing non -bailable warrants of arrest and process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and one more so that they may be compelled to surrender before the Court.