1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.112/2010 Ranga and ors. V/s The State of Raj. & ors. 5.5.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.N.Bhandari Mr.A.K.Gupta for the appellants. Mr.J.S.Tanwar ) Mr.S.C.Purohit )-for respondents. The matter has come up on the application seeking leave to maintain this appeal. It is alleged that the order has been passed adverse to the appellants though they were not party to the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid, appeal has been filed alongwith an application for leave to maintain appeal. Looking to the reasons given in the application for leave to appeal, the same is allowed and the appellants are permitted to maintain this appeal. Another application has been filed for vacation of interim order passed by this Court on 5th Feb.2010. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally at this stage itself. It is submitted that appellants were not the party to the writ petition yet an order has been passed adverse to them which may result in their arrest. Such an order cannot be passed by the learned Single Judge in absence of persons concerned. Thus, order needs to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on filing of the FIR, the matter was investigated with adverse report against the 2 appellants. No action was taken due to political influence. The investigation officer was changed time and again and lastly Shri Himmat Abhilash Tak was nominated as IO, who is not acting fairly. In light of the aforesaid only, the learned Single Judge has passed the order which may not be interfered with. The learned counsel for the State submits that investigation in the matter is being conducted fairly and without influence and it would further be conducted as per provisions of law. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge passed the following directions:- “They both are directed to either take strict action against those who have been named in the FIR within a period of two weeks, otherwise this Court shall direct the concerned S.P. to appear before this Court.” The aforesaid order has been passed when the appellants were not before the learned Single Judge. We are however not commenting on the factual aspect as to whether the appellants are involved in the crime or not, but all these would be looked into by the Investigating Agency. Since the Government counsel has assured that proper and fair investigation would be conducted and it would not be influenced by any pressure, we trust that aforesaid would be adhered to by the prosecution agency. 3 In view of the aforesaid, the directions quoted above are set aside, however, it would not affect investigation. If it is found that appellants are involved in the offence, then prosecution agency would be at liberty to proceed as per law. So far as the other issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, they would be at liberty to pursue the same before the learned Single Judge and can make a prayer to expedite final hearing. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of. In view of the above, the application for vacation of interim order dated 5.2.2010 also stands disposed of. (M.N.Bhandari)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Parmar