ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing for the State accepts notice on behalf of the Opp. Party No.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the then learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C2 Case No.1079 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioners for expunging certain evidence from the record, was refused and while refusing such prayer, certain adverse remark has been made against the Senior Lawyer appearing in the case. 3. While the matter was pending, an I.A. No.2084 of 2013 has been filed wherein an order dated 10.04.2013 has been challenged whereby and whereunder, privilege granted to the petitioners under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been withdrawn and the warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution did adduce certain evidences, out of which, some were not admissible and, therefore, an application was filed, keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in a case of Dr. J.J. Irani @ Jamshed J. Irani v. State of Jharkhand (Jhr) reported in [ 2006 (4) JCR 513 (Jhr)], for expunging the evidences, which are not admissible. 5. That prayer was rejected vide order dated 22.06.2012, after passing following remarks against a Senior Lawyer appearing in the case “the futile or incisive mind of the Advocate created new stage beyond Cr.P.C. and wants to know judgment before pronouncement of judgment.” 6. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State, I do not find any illegality, so far rejection of the prayer is concerned, as the petitioners may raise this issue relating to inadmissibility of some of the evidences at the time of final argument and, therefore, the order dated 22.06.2012 never warrants to be interfered with. However, the remarks, as stated above, passed against the Lawyer appears to be wholly unwarranted, as whatever prayer had been made that had been made on the basis of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the remarks as aforesaid, is hereby, expunged. 8. However, the remarks, as stated above, passed against the Lawyer appears to be wholly unwarranted, as whatever prayer had been made that had been made on the basis of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the remarks as aforesaid, is hereby, expunged. 8. So far order dated 10.04.2013 is concerned, that seems to be quite illegal, as the petitioners had been pursuing the matter, which was pending before this Court and, thereby, it cannot be said that privilege granted to the petitioners of dispensation of their personal attendance was misused and thereby, the order dated 10.04.2013 is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.