JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner is present in person. He submits that he is an illiterate person, but he can put his signature. 2. These matters are pending since long and therefore, it requires early disposal. When he was asked to submit his case so far as this Criminal Misc. Application is concerned, it is his say that being illiterate, he is not able to submit his submissions and therefore, he is requesting to allow one Anand H. Goswami, who is shown as opponent No. 4 in such Criminal Misc. Application to submit his case. However, law does not permit the Court to allow any third person to appear on behalf of any such person, more particularly in criminal litigation when there is no specific authority assigned by the petitioner in favour of any such person, who is none other than the opponent No. 4. He further submits that he does not know anything about the case. However, considering the nature of litigation and fair statement of the petitioner, instead of dismissing the petition on such technical ground, Court will take care of the petition relying upon the facts and circumstances emerging from the record. 3. Since the petitioner has completed his submissions, respondents are called upon amongst whom learned advocate Mr. P.R. Abhichandani has submitted his submissions for respondent No. 1 being original petitioner in main application whereas, learned Government Pleader Mr. Mitesh Amin for respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to 9 has objected to allow the application on several grounds. Respondent No. 4 Anandgiri H. Goswami has remained present as party-in-person and addressed this Court in support of the petitioner. Rest of the respondents i.e. respondent No. 3 - Mr. I.J. Pathan is absent. So far as respondent No. 5 - Merubhai Mandalbhai Bharwad is concerned, there is surprising disclosure by respondent No. 4 Anandgiri H. Goswami that though Merubhai Mandalbhai Bharwad is present in the Court room but he is shown as absconder in Chargesheet filed on 5.7.2012 pursuant to the prior report by the concerned Officer as per order by this Court. Such issue will be dealt at later stage. 4. Such issue will be dealt at later stage. 4. At present, we are concerned with the application wherein present applicant namely; Rukkadbhai Danabhai Bharwad who is opponent No. 5 in main Special Criminal Application, has submitted this application with his signature wherein there are in all four paras which reads as under:- "1. The applicant is the original opponent No. 5 in the Special Criminal Application No. 36 of 2009 filed by the opponent No. 1 herein. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court on 13.1.2009 has passed an order, copy of which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. 2. It is further submitted that the Writ of the Hon'ble Court came to be served on or about 25th of February, 2009 and the applicant came to know about the false allegations and averments of the petitioner with oblique motive. It submitted that as per the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Court has directed the State Authorities to submit the report before the Hon'ble Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 5.2.2009. It is shocking that no such report is produced by the authorities. The applicant state that without prejudice to applicant's right to challenge such report, the applicant must be given copy of such report, so that applicant can make a comprehensive affidavit in reply and appropriate application for vacating interim relief and/or hearing of the main matter. 3. It is submitted that the authorities have failed and neglected, they are also required to be dealt with by the Hon'ble Court and appropriate orders in that regard are required to be passed. 4. The applicant therefore prays that: [A] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present application by directing the opponent authorities to submit the report as contemplated in the order dated 13.1.2009, passed in Special Criminal Application No. 36 of 2009, and to give copy of such report to the applicant forthwith in the interest of justice. [B] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate directions against the opponent authorities for non compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 13.1.2009 in Special Criminal Application No. 36 of 2009. [C] Any other and further orders which are deemed fit and expedient in the interest of justice be passed;" 5. The contents of above application which is preferred as Criminal Misc. [C] Any other and further orders which are deemed fit and expedient in the interest of justice be passed;" 5. The contents of above application which is preferred as Criminal Misc. Application in Special Criminal Application No. 36 of 2009 makes it clear that present applicant is one of the opponents in main application. Therefore, basic fact of that application is relevant which is disclosed by learned advocate for opponent No. 1 herein being original petitioner in main application. 6. Learned advocate Mr. P.R. Abhichandani has restricted reading of only material lines just with a view to realize that why main application is filed and for what purpose and, therefore, only those basic facts are recollected here without entering into the merits of the main case since respondent No. 4 has argued at length in favour of the main petition disclosing several facts contending that they are not properly brought on record of this petition and, therefore, at this stage, I do not wish to reproduce all those details except to recollect the nature of main application. 7. In main application, the opponent No. 1 herein being petitioner therein, has prayed to quash and set aside an order dated 1.8.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in complaint filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in main petition i.e. opponent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. The petitioner has also requested the Court to call for R & P of such complaint being Inquiry Case No. 158 of 2006 so also R & P of similar complaint being Inquiry Case No. 175 of 2004 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, so also R & P of Inquiry Case No. 10 of 2005 from the Special Court, Ahmedabad and also the R & P of Inquiry Case No. 176 of 1996 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar and to quash and set aside all such complaints preferred by opponent No. 4 herein being respondent No. 3 in main petition. The petitioner has also prayed to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of order dated 1.8.2006 so also orders passed in above referred criminal cases being Inquiry Case Nos. 175 of 2004, 10 of 2005 and 176 of 1996. 8. The petitioner has also prayed to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of order dated 1.8.2006 so also orders passed in above referred criminal cases being Inquiry Case Nos. 175 of 2004, 10 of 2005 and 176 of 1996. 8. Considering the above relief, initially, it would be appropriate to recollect the basic fact of all above referred criminal cases amongst which certified copy of inquiry case No. 158 of 2006 is produced at Annexure 'A' and reference of one last complaint by respondent No. 3 is enough to realize the nature of litigation. 9. Perusal of Annexure A being copy of inquiry case No. 158 of 2006 makes it clear that the complainant therein, who is respondent No. 3 in main petition and opponent No. 4 in the present application, has identified such complaint as filed under Section 202(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Referred to as 'Code' hereinafter). In such complaint, respondent No. 3 is now submitting that it is an application; the opponents are disclosed in wide term as "all employees and officers and their accomplices so also all the persons whose responsibility may be fixed including that of Bank/LIC and Government/Police Force". Therefore, one thing is certain that there is no disclosure of any particular aspect or person as if application is against any person either as an opponent or as accused. So far as subject matter of such complaint/application is concerned, it is disclosed that for completing an investigation under Section 202(3) of the Code, the inquiry under such Section against corruption/atrocity and issues of public interest is to be carried out. So far as text of the application is concerned, now there is disclosure of various similar applications/complaints filed before different Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mehsana and Gandhinagar. Whereas in prayer clause, it is specifically prayed that such application/complaint of the applicant - complainant be registered as inquiry case under Sections 202(3) and to request one inquiry officer namely; Mr. I.J. Pathan disclosing his address as Bhalakia Manzil, Near Meera Cinema, Shahalam, Ahmedabad to proceed further in different inquiries and to complete investigation at the earliest and to file report at the earliest before the Court. Considering such request/prayer if we peruse the text of the application/complaint to realize that who is Mr. I.J. Pathan, then, it becomes clear that probably Mr. Considering such request/prayer if we peruse the text of the application/complaint to realize that who is Mr. I.J. Pathan, then, it becomes clear that probably Mr. I.J. Pathan was a retired police officer at the relevant time and, therefore, applicant/complainant has in the text of the complaint stated that since there are several orders at the relevant time assigning the investigation to Mr. I.J. Pathan, now, they are requesting the Court to direct the Mr. I.J. Pathan to complete the investigation and to file his report at the earliest. The basic issue that needs to be dealt with in the main petition is not only interesting but serious, inasmuch as, prima facie it seems that in any of the complaints, original complainant has nowhere discloses either the ingredients of any offence so also name of any person with specific allegation about his/her activity which may amounts to commission of any crime and as if the complaint is in the form of Public Interest Litigation against so called corruption and atrocities in the society against all. But the surprising prayer and order is to the effect that powers were sought for and granted to act is independent investigating officer to one retired police officer who is selected by the complainant himself whereas allegation in the main petition suggest that pursuant to impugned order such person being original respondent No. 2 in main petition is taking disadvantage of such order. 10. Irrespective of what is stated in the main application, at this stage, I do not want to disclose the merits of the main petition since it is yet to be decided on its own merits and, therefore, further discussion of factual aspect has been avoided except for recollecting the manner and method of passing order below such application/complaint and order itself. 11. It is undisputed fact that such application/complaint was filed on 19.07.2006 when there was an endorsement that "fix for hearing on 01.08.2006". Thereafter, on 01.08.2006, there is an impugned order whereby simply relying upon the same order in Inquiry Case No. 167 and 175 of 2004, the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad has passed the impugned order to register the complaint of the applicant as Inquiry case registered under Section 202(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further directed that inquiry officer Mr. I.H. Pathan shall file his report at the earliest with reference to all the matters relating to corruption, atrocity and issues of public interest. 12. Though learned advocate for the original petitioner has pointed out some facts about respondent No. 3 and though respondent No. 3 has disclosed several information stating that all such information is "fact on record". But, as already stated herein above at this stage when I am dealing with the Miscellaneous Application only I do not wish to reproduce or disclosed all such fact at this stage. 13. However, considering the pleadings before the Court at the relevant time i.e. on 13.01.2009 the co-ordinate bench of this Court has passed following order; "1. RULE returnable on 05.02.2009. Learned Additional Advocate General appears with learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. waives service. 2. In view of the shocking state of affairs transpiring from the averments on oath, the order dated 01.08.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Inquiry Case No. 158 of 2006 as also the order dated 01.08.2006 by the same Court in the complaint filed by respondent No. 4 are stayed. Record & Proceedings of Inquiry Case No. 175 of 2004 pending before learned J.M.F.C., Meshana, of Inquiry Case No. 10 of 2005 pending before learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad, of Inquiry Case No. 167 of 1996 pending before learned J.M.F.C., Gandhinagar and of Inquiry Case No. 158 of 2006 pending before learned C.J.M., Ahmedabad (Rural) shall be immediately called for from the respective Courts and shall be kept in safe custody of the Registrar General for being produced before this Court on the next date of hearing. 3. It is stated by learned Additional Advocate General that the State Government will enquire and report as to whether any cognizable offence is, prima facie, committed by any of the respondents No. 2 to 5 under the guise or authority of the impugned orders, or otherwise, in view of the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3 have been armed with judicial orders for more than two years. It would be appropriate if the State Government immediately enquires into the whole affair through a competent officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police, who shall furnish a preliminary report about the activities, legal, illegal or otherwise, of respondents No. 2 and 3, by the next date of hearing." 14. It would be appropriate if the State Government immediately enquires into the whole affair through a competent officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police, who shall furnish a preliminary report about the activities, legal, illegal or otherwise, of respondents No. 2 and 3, by the next date of hearing." 14. Pursuant to such order, it seems that, the competent officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police has inquired the issue as per directions by the Court. 15. However, before such report is placed on record, the present applicant has preferred this application for the reliefs which are quoted herein above, wherein the basic grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that there is non compliance of order dated 13.01.2009 by not filing a report on or before 05.02.2009 and that applicant wants a copy of such report to challenge such report and to make a comprehensive application for vacating the interim relief and for hearing the main matter. 16. However, at this stage when pursuant to further order dated 17.02.2010 by the Honourable the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24358 of 2009 a detailed report is placed on record of this Court and when on 05.08.2016 this Court has passed following order, at present there is no reason or substance to keep this application pending or to provide copy of such report to the respondents for following reasons. Text of order dated 05.08.2016 reads as under: "Party-in-person respondent No. 3 submits that several irrelevant documents have been forwarded to this Court and this Court is in possession of such irrelevant documents though they are not called for by first order dated 13/1/2009. However, the record shows that on 3/4/2012, the concerned Bench has observed as under : 3. Under the circumstances, Registrar General shall segregate the papers of Inquiry Case No. 1 of 2008, Inquiry Cases No. 2 of 2007 to 9 of 2007 and send back the same to the concerned Courts. Record & Proceedings of Inquiry Case No. 175 of 2004, Inquiry Case No. 10 of 2005, Inquiry Case No. 167 of 1996 and Inquiry Case No. 158 of 2006 shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar General, in a sealed condition, for being produced before this Court as and when the same is called for. 2. Record & Proceedings of Inquiry Case No. 175 of 2004, Inquiry Case No. 10 of 2005, Inquiry Case No. 167 of 1996 and Inquiry Case No. 158 of 2006 shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar General, in a sealed condition, for being produced before this Court as and when the same is called for. 2. Therefore, it seems that at the relevant time, care is taken by returning back the unnecessary documents, if any, received by this Court. Hence such issue does not survive at this stage. However, during the course of arguments, when original record is being examined, if necessary, irrelevant documents would certainly be released by this Court, if they are not required for deciding the petition. 3. On perusal of record, it is found that majority of papers have now become illegible, may be because of passage of time. Therefore, it would be appropriate for all concerned to file compilation in the form of paper books either of the documents upon which they are relying, but in any case by endorsing page numbers of original file or file entire set of record in bound paper books. It must be ensured by all concerned that all pages are legible and where original pages are not legible, then its typed copy must be filed. Similarly, if any papers are in Gujarati, the same are required to be translated. 4. Registry shall allow the party-in-person respondents to inspect the file in presence of officer of the Court so as to enable him to identify the documents which are required to be either typed or translated. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 29/7/2016, the Registry has placed the sealed cover of report received by it from the Superintendent of Police, CID [Crime & Railway]. Such report is submitted by such authority pursuant to direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in the order dated 29/7/2016. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now this Court has to proceed further to decide such matter at the earliest and, therefore, this Court has no option but to refer that report. In view of such fact, sealed cover of report is opened in presence of all parties so also Registrar [Judicial]. 6. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now this Court has to proceed further to decide such matter at the earliest and, therefore, this Court has no option but to refer that report. In view of such fact, sealed cover of report is opened in presence of all parties so also Registrar [Judicial]. 6. Considering such report, it seems that when almost four years have lapsed since receipt of from such report, it would be appropriate to inquire from the same authority that what is the present status regarding outcome of such report. For the purpose, respondent No. 1 State is directed to disclose relevant information on record on or before next date. 7. Such report would be referred at the time of final hearing. However, when it was lying in sealed cover with the Registry till date, considering the dispute involved in the petition, it would be appropriate to keep it again in sealed cover, keeping envelope of interim report as it is, which will be referred at the time of final hearing. For the purpose, Registrar [Judicial] shall take necessary steps to keep the report in sealed cover and to reopen it on the next date of hearing i.e. 12/8/2016." 17. Though facts are quite clear as disclosed herein above learned Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that matter is under consideration for complainant of order dated 13.01.2009 and that now report is called for by the High Court and more particularly when charge sheet is filed pursuant to such report. Copy of such report is not material for the respondents so as to provide them a copy as prayed for thought report is outcome of the directions by the High Court and, therefore, copy of the report cannot be make public or cannot be provided to the applicant as prayed for. 18. Reason for disposing this application; "Pursuant to Court's directions now a detail report is already placed on record which has been referred by the Court as observed in order dated 05.08.2016. By such order when it was already held that now report is to be kept in sealed cover and therefore till final hearing of the main matter there is no reason to disturb such order which was not challenged by any of the litigants in any manner whatsoever." 19. By such order when it was already held that now report is to be kept in sealed cover and therefore till final hearing of the main matter there is no reason to disturb such order which was not challenged by any of the litigants in any manner whatsoever." 19. It cannot be ignored that the order is not with reference to certain activity of certain person only but is an overall report based upon the directions by this Court so also the Honourable Supreme Court of India and that pursuant to outcome of such report the State Government has through Shri T.N. Malik, Police Inspector, CID Crime has lodged an FIR being I - C.R. No. 4 of 2012 on 09.04.2012 under Section 384, 386, 387, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against original opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Pursuant to such FIR, a charge sheet is also filed on 04.07.2012 though original opponent No. 4 with his wife is shown as absconder. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from the concerned officer disclose that even charges are also framed. In view of such disclosure and factual details now it becomes clear that outcome of report is basically reflected in the FIR and basis for report is being taken as a supporting evidence in the charge sheet pursuant to such FIR and charge sheet is filed against opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and, therefore, they are very much in the possession of the papers of charge sheet which is nothing but the outcome of report of inquiry held by the directions by the High Court while submitting such report and therefore now original opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 can certainly have the information regarding outcome of the report and, therefore, there is no reason in their submission though they need copy of such report to resist such main petition. 21. Irrespective of rival submissions at present, the fact remains that main petition is lingering since the year 2009 only because of pendency of this misc. application and it is the submission by the original respondents that they are in need of copy of such report for effective representation and, therefore it is to be observed even at the cost of repetition that now when outcome of the report in the form of FIR against original respondent Nos. application and it is the submission by the original respondents that they are in need of copy of such report for effective representation and, therefore it is to be observed even at the cost of repetition that now when outcome of the report in the form of FIR against original respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 resulted into charge sheet against them and thereby when paper of investigation in the form of charge sheet papers are provided to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 it cannot be said that they could not represent themselves properly. 22. In view of such fact I do not see any reason to provide copy of such report which is kept in sealed cover for certain administrative reasons also, since the report is not only against the impugned order only but may also against the concerned judicial officers who have passed such orders and, therefore, though it can be made available to any litigant during arguments of main petition, at present, I do not see any substance in the submission to provide copy of such report to any of the litigant i.e. either original petitioner or respondents. 23. Therefore, at this stage this application alleging non compliance of order dated 13.01.2009 and requesting to provide copy of report pursuant to such order to the applicant herein has no substance and, therefore, same is dismissed. 24. However, as observed herein above it is made clear that now when both the parties have to submit their case for main petition as and when and if so required and if at all report is required to be seen by the present applicant, such issue may be considered at the relevant time in accordance with law. 25. With above observations, application stands dispose of. Rule is discharged. 26. Parties are directed to prepare themselves for arguing main Criminal Revision Application on 17.02.2017.