1. - The lawyers are stated to be on indefinite strike.

2. Perused the contents of the instant miscellaneous application.

3. Instant miscellaneous application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking compliance of the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Coordinate Bench in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4032/2011; titled as Devendra Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Others .

4. Vide an order dated 14.08.2014 the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice has assigned the present matter to this Court.

5. Facts, in brief, of instant miscellaneous application are that the petitioner, Rampratap Saini is a practicing lawyer. His father had lodged a F.I.R bearing No.174/2014, dated 02.05.2014, at Police Station, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 354, 451 and 379 I.P.C. The above said F.I.R. was investigated and the respondent No.4, S.H.O. Police Station, Khetri, submitted a Final Report on 14.05.2014 in the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the said report, Investigating Officer had opined that the complainant, Banwari Lal Saini, on asking of his son, who is a practicing Counsel, had stated exaggerated facts in the typed complaint. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, aggrieved against the above said comments made by the Investigating Officer approached this Court praying that above comments be expunged as the same adversely affect his reputation as a Counsel.

6. Thus, following question arises for consideration of this Court:-

"1. THAT as to whether any Police Officer while investigating a case can be restrained to express his opinion?

2. THAT as to whether there is a complete privilege or immunity in favour of the practicing lawyer to the extent that his conduct cannot be commented upon by the Investigating Officer or any public official in any proceeding?

7. The above said questions have arisen for consideration of this Court because of various directions issued by the Coordinate Bench especially on 28.03.2004 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.97/2014 in the main petition i.e. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4032/2011; titled as Devendra Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Others.

8. Before the above said questions are examined, it will be necessary to reproduce here in below Section 126 and Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, reference to which has been made in above order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench. The said Sections recognise privilege of a Counsel not to divulge any professional communications received by him or to which he is privy, during the course of his profession and similarly there is immunity from disclosing confidential communication received from legal advisor.

9. Section 126 and Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read as under:-

"126. Professional communications.- No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment"

Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure-

(1) any such communication made in furtherance of any [illegal] purpose;

(2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.

It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, [pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.

Explanation.- The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment ha