JUDGMENT 1. - The lawyers are stated to be on indefinite strike. 2. Perused the contents of the instant miscellaneous application. 3. Instant miscellaneous application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking compliance of the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Coordinate Bench in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4032/2011; titled as Devendra Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Others . 4. Vide an order dated 14.08.2014 the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice has assigned the present matter to this Court. 5. Facts, in brief, of instant miscellaneous application are that the petitioner, Rampratap Saini is a practicing lawyer. His father had lodged a F.I.R bearing No.174/2014, dated 02.05.2014, at Police Station, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 354, 451 and 379 I.P.C. The above said F.I.R. was investigated and the respondent No.4, S.H.O. Police Station, Khetri, submitted a Final Report on 14.05.2014 in the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the said report, Investigating Officer had opined that the complainant, Banwari Lal Saini, on asking of his son, who is a practicing Counsel, had stated exaggerated facts in the typed complaint. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, aggrieved against the above said comments made by the Investigating Officer approached this Court praying that above comments be expunged as the same adversely affect his reputation as a Counsel. 6. Thus, following question arises for consideration of this Court:- "1. THAT as to whether any Police Officer while investigating a case can be restrained to express his opinion? 2. THAT as to whether there is a complete privilege or immunity in favour of the practicing lawyer to the extent that his conduct cannot be commented upon by the Investigating Officer or any public official in any proceeding? 7. The above said questions have arisen for consideration of this Court because of various directions issued by the Coordinate Bench especially on 28.03.2004 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.97/2014 in the main petition i.e. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4032/2011; titled as Devendra Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Others. 8. Before the above said questions are examined, it will be necessary to reproduce here in below Section 126 and Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, reference to which has been made in above order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench. 8. Before the above said questions are examined, it will be necessary to reproduce here in below Section 126 and Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, reference to which has been made in above order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench. The said Sections recognise privilege of a Counsel not to divulge any professional communications received by him or to which he is privy, during the course of his profession and similarly there is immunity from disclosing confidential communication received from legal advisor. 9. Section 126 and Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read as under:- "126. Professional communications.- No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment" Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure- (1) any such communication made in furtherance of any [illegal] purpose; (2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, [pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. Explanation.- The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased." "129. Confidential communications with legal advisers. - No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others." 10. At the same time, it will also be apposite to note here that the duty has been cast upon the Investigating Officer to note each and every facts which comes to his knowledge or qua which he receives information in the Police diary. 11. Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:- "172. Diary of proceedings in investigation. (1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. [(1A) The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under Section 161 shall be inserted in the case diary.] [(1B) The diary referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a volume and duly paginated.] (2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. (3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), shall apply." [Emphasis supplied]. 12. A perusal of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall reveal that what is recorded in the Police diary is either the opinion of the Investigating Officer or information received or knowledge gathered and same is not a substantive piece of evidence. 13. Furthermore, somewhat privilege has also been bestowed upon the Investigating Officer that the information, opinion and knowledge of fact noted by him in the case diary can only be used for the limited purpose by the Courts and same can also be used by the Investigating Officer to refresh his memory. 13. Furthermore, somewhat privilege has also been bestowed upon the Investigating Officer that the information, opinion and knowledge of fact noted by him in the case diary can only be used for the limited purpose by the Courts and same can also be used by the Investigating Officer to refresh his memory. Thus, it is apparent that what is recorded by the Investigating Officer in his diary is not open to public/judicial security until same is used against the accused that too only for purposes of contradiction subject to rider prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, such a liberty has been granted only to the accused and not to the Counsel of the accused. 14. In the course of discharge of the professional duties, the Members of the Bar sometimes act in tandem and in harmony with the Police Officials, but conversely more often for safeguarding the liberty of the citizen they take cudgels with the Police Officials and take them to task by taking lawful course and invoking legal provisions as weapon in their arsenal. 15. Therefore, situations, when, the Police Official or a Counsel can rub each other on wrong side while discharging their professional duties cannot be ruled out. However, till both act in a dignified manner, they are bound to earn and invoke mutual respect of each other. As a matter of caution old age adage "give respect to earn respect and grace is mutual" is required to be remembered by all concerned. 16. Therefore, in matters of above nature personally, I am of the view that interference of the Court should be minimal. 17. Since in various miscellaneous applications filed and main petition, various directions have been issued by the Coordinate Bench to which very humbly I don't subscribe, it has become imperative that once for all the above said questions and ancillary issues accompanying questions raised in the present application should be examined threadbare by a Larger Bench of this Court so that the duty of the Police Officials to conduct investigation and formulate their own independent opinion is also acknowledged by the Courts, yet at the same time by drawing a fine balance, the reputation and respect with which Advocates are perceived by a public at large is also upheld and maintained. 18. 18. Therefore, the present matter deserves to be placed before the Larger Bench for answering the questions raised and issues touching above questions in an emphatic matter.Let the present matter be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench for the decision of the case and answering the question and issues raised in the present case.Order accordingly. *******