Important Point—Petition is not maintainable when petitioner is not a party to proceedings order of which he has impugned.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of Rule for the respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") has been preferred by the petitioner, who is accused No. 3, in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2001, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhalia, District: Jamnagar, with the following prayers:

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this application;

(B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned orders passed below (a) Exhibit 260 dated 26.06.2015, (b) Exhibit 287 dated 07.07.2015 and (c) Exhibit 303 dated 07.07.2015, all by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khambhalia, District: Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2001;

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Sessions Case No. 35 of 2001 pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khambhalia, District: Jamnagar;

(D) Your Lordship be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the petition, a brief factual background would be necessary. Widespread communal violence, including incidents of loot, arson and rioting, took place at Jamjodhpur on 30.10.1990. A police team was deputed to control the riots. One hundred and thirty three persons were arrested from the mob, including one Amrutlal Madhavji Vaisnani, the complainant, and Prabhudas Madhavji Vaisnani, the brother of the complainant (deceased). The deceased was remanded to judicial custody along with the other accused persons. On 01.11.1990, the deceased complained to the jail authorities about back pain and was treated by the jail doctors. Thereafter, on 03.11.1990, the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital and ultimately, he died on 18.11.1990, in the hospital. The body was handed over to his brother, the complainant, without any medico legal case being registered or postmortem being conducted. The death certificate was issued by the hospital authorities, stating that the cause of death is acute renal failure with cardio respiratory arrest. An application was moved for conducting the postmortem, which was registered as an FIR, being, C.R. No. 1102/1990, at Jam Jodhpur Police Station, against seven police officers, including the present petitioner, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, for the death of Prabhudas Vaisnani. The said FIR was then sent to the CID Crime, which investigated it. Thereafter, the CID Crime submitted a 'C summary report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jam Khambhalia, on 20.12.1995. The State Government challenged the aforesaid order before the Sessions Court, Jamnagar, by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 1996.

3. When Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 1996 filed by the State Government was at the stage of hearing, a decision was taken to withdraw the aforesaid revision application. The said revision application was, therefore withdrawn on 15.07.2011.

4. It appears that in the interregnum, a number of applications were submitted and proceedings initiated, by other accused persons in various courts.

5. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge in the year 2001, and the charge was framed against the accused persons on 18.11.2012. On 04.12.2012, the prosecution provided the list of documents and witnesses.

6. Several applications were filed by one or the other accus