Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:
“(a) That the Session trial No. 24-S/7 of 2012, pending before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla in case FIR No. 115 of 2008, may kindly be stayed and may be handed over to CBI Court.
(b) That the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shiv Ram Chaudhary, may be suspended immediately till the trial is not concluded, since he is influencing the prosecution witnesses and threatening them with dire consequences.
(c) That in view of subsequent events investigation in the details of the phone calls and C.D's which are placed on record vide Annexure P-9 be ordered to be done by CBI.
(d) That the Session trial No. 24-S/7 of 2012, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla in case FIR No. 115 of 2008, may be handed over to the CBI and further trial may be ordered to be conducted by the CBI Court and fresh statements of the prosecution witnesses may be ordered to be taken by the CBI Court by issuing the fresh summons to the witnesses.”
2. This petition is fall out of the judgment in CWP No. 3684 of 2009 titled Sakshi Sharma v. State of H.P which judgment has been clarified and modified vide separate judgment of the day in LPA Nos. 480, 281 and 282 of 2012.
3. The allegations in this petition have been made against one of the accused Shiv Ram Chaudhary, Deputy Superintendent of Police to the effect that he is threatening the prosecution witnesses with dire consequences.
4. This is not a matter which can be gone into by this Court at this stage as that would amount to pre-judging the issue and influencing the course of justice. The petitioners are claiming various reliefs based on several causes of action for which specific remedies have been provided under law. Above all, the petition also involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be dealt with by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sitaram Khemka v. State of Maharashtra 2006 AIR SCW 2488 wherein it has been held as follows:
“9. Having regard to the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties before us, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. The writ petition has rightly been held by the High Court to be involving disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has several causes of action wherefor he is required to pursue specific remedies provided therefor in law.
10. A writ petition, as has rightly been pointed out by the High Court, for grant of the said reliefs, was not the remedy. A matter involving a great deal of disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. As the High Court or this Court cannot, in view of the nature of the controversy as also the disputed questions of fact, go into the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not contain any factual or legal error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
5. Since the petitioners have adequate remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure by bringing all these facts to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, who is already ceased of the matter, no relief can be granted to them in this petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the trial Judge for redressal of the grievances, who needless to observe shall adjudicate upon the same strictly in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any observation made hereinabove, which have been made solely for the purpose of disposal of this petition.
With these observations, the present criminal writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications.