1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Banwari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1596/2007 ............. Date of Order : 26/03/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. S.G.Ojha for the petitioner Mr. J.P.S.Choudhary, P.P. for the State. Mr. Gaurav for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20.9.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Churu (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Churu (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was dismissed. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court. It appears that before the trial court a case “State Vs. Satya Narayan and Ors.” is pending for the offences under Sections 453, 448 and 380/149 IPC. The case is being conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. However, the petitioner complainant filed an application before the trial court requesting the trial court to summon Bhanwarlal Daiya, Advocate as prosecution witness. That application came to be dismissed by the trial court by a well reasoned order. On a revision, the revisional court did not find any error in the order passed by the trial court. During the investigation, Shri Bhanwar Lal Daiya, Advocate has not been cited as witness of the prosecution, even there is no relevancy to summon him as a prosecution witness. The case is represented by the State through its public prosecutor who never intended to produce Shri Bhanwar Lal Daiya, Advocate as prosecution witness as his statement has no relevancy with the criminal case. It appears that in some civil matter, a written statement was filed by accused persons and Shri Bhanwar Lal Daiya, Advocate has been representing the accused persons. The written statement filed by the accused was sought to be proved by calling Shri Bhanwar Lal Daiya, Advocate 3 as prosecution witness. On careful perusal of the orders passed by the courts below, in my view, the courts below were justified in declining to summon him as prosecution witness. It appears that the complainant is somehow trying to over-reach the case of the State. If at all the written statement is sought to be proved, it can be put to accused if they appear as defence witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C. but not the counsel who representing the accused in the civil matter. The criminal misc. petition is wholly misconceived. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition. The criminal misc. petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp 4 S.B.Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 1106/2007 In S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1596/2007 Date of Order : 26/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR. Mr. S.G.Ojha for the petitioner Mr. J.P.S.Choudhary, P.P. for the State. Mr. Gaurav for the respondents. Since the criminal misc. petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp