Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1762 (RAJ)

Bharat Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-06-07

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The matter come up on S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 3705/2019 filed by Advocate Bharat Yadav and also S.B. C.W.P. No. 444/2019 filed by him separately. 2. This Court vide order dated 04.06.2019 notices certain events which took place at the Police Station Ashok Nagar resulting in harassment and manhandling of an advocate and the Court called the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissioner at, Jaipur and he was asked to submit his report in regard to the said incident. A report has been sent by the Police Commissioner to the Government Advocate Shri Rajendra Yadav on 07.06.2019 wherein he mentions that the concerned Assistant Sub-Inspector Madanlal has been removed from the Police Station, Ashok Nagar and with regard to the other aspects, a preliminary enquiry is being conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (South). 3. Heard representatives of the Bar as well as the Government Advocate Shri Rajendra Yadav at length. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Adv. submitted that such incident relating to advocates going to various police stations in the districts are being noticed time and again and the advocates apprehend that they are not being properly attended to by the police Officials and they are being harassed and intimidated. He suggests that in each districts a Coordination Committee be formed so that such type of matters may be handled properly in various districts and the dispute between the police authorities and the advocates may not arise in future. 5. Mr. Anil Upman, President, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association also submits that such untoward incident should be stopped for all times and effective measures should be taken in this regard. Mr. Rajesh Karnal, President, Bar Association also submits that advocates need to be given due respect and the police Officials ought not be misbehaving with them. 6. Shri Rajendra Prasad, Government Counsel agrees that there should not be any conflict between two main pillars of administration of law and order namely police as well as the lawyers and states that Committee in this regard shall be formed in each districts so that there may not be any such incident occurred and, if any, such complaints are received, effective powers shall be provided to such Committee to take action in this regard. 7. 7. This Court notices that the Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Ors. has noticed that there are grievances of advocates in relation to the action being taken by the administration at different levels. It also directed that each High Court shall constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee. However, the Grievance Redressal Committee is only at the level of the High Court. The Honble Chief Justice has already constituted such Committee at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur as well as at Jaipur which includes three sitting Judges of the Court and Chairman of the Bar Council, President and Advocate General. Such a Committee although exists at the level of the High Court but the Court appreciates the stand taken by the Counsels that a Coordination Committee at each district level should be functioning so that the matters may not have to travel up to the High Court with regard to issues which can be sorted out at the level of the district alone. 8. It is, therefore, suggested that Shri Rajendra Yadav, Government Counsel shall place before this Court a tentative constitution of such Committee which shall include at least one representative from the respective Bar Association of that district as well as one Member from the judiciary. Apart from the same, there should also be one Official from the concerned police department so that the matter can be examined impartially. The Chairmanship of such a Committee should be given to either the District Judge of the concerned district or to any retired High Court Judge, if need so arises. 9. With the said observation, while quashing the FIRs which were preferred by Bharat Yadav, Adv. in regard to the present matter, the case is kept open for further orders and arguments immediately after vacations on 03.07.2019. 10. In the meanwhile, Mr. Rajendra Yadav, Govt. Counsel shall submit the report received from the Commissioner after the decision on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur. He also submit report regarding the formation of the Committee its scope and powers made available to it. List on 03.07.2019.