Laxman Kumeti vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3679 Chatt

                                            1




                                                                      NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              WPCR No. 542 of 2020

    • Ashwani Rathore S/o Shri R.S. Rathore, Aged About 37 Years
      Presently Posted As Station House Officer, Police Station Azad Chowk,
      District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Ashoka Heights, Mowa, District
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs,
      Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   2. Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Near
      Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Senior Superintendent Of Police (S.S.P.) Raipur, District Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondents

WPCR No. 544 of 2020

• Laxman Kumeti S/o Late Shri Sevaram Kumeti, Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, R/o Sector 4, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Near Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent Of Police (S.P.), Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Petitioners : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate

For Respondent/ State : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Addl A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board 13/06/2022

1. Since common issue is involved both the petitions are heard together.

2. Both the petitions have been filed to expunge the remarks/

observations made by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur

while deciding case No. 42/ 2019 on 21.10.2020.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Ashwani Rathore was

posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Vidhansabha,

District Raipur wherein an incident took place on 26.10.2018 and

subsequent to the complaint made FIR was registered under Section

302 of IPC bearing crime No. 395/ 2018. Initially, the crime was

investigated by Ashwani Rathore, subsequently he was transferred

and the investigation was being continued by Laxman Kumeti who was

subsequent SHO. After investigation, police arrested 6 accused

persons namely Smt. Phoolbatiya Chaturvedi, Smt. Bhagwati

Chaturvedi, Umashankar Grithlahre, Kailash Kumar Grithlahre,

Dharmendra Kumar Jangade and Harish Kumar Patel. Thereafter, they

were charge-sheeted and tried before the Learned Sessions Judge in

the aforesaid sessions trial number. The final charge-sheet was filed

on 22.01.2019 and after the trial the Learned First Additional Sessions

Jude on 21.10.2020 acquitted all the accused of the offences but while

acquitting the persons the trial court made an observation at Para 25

of the judgment which reads as under :-

" 25- izdj.k esa izLrqr lk{; ds laiw.kZ fo'ys"k.k i'pkr~ blesa dksbZ lansg ugha jg tkrk fd gR;k tSls xaHkhj vijk/k esa foospd y{e.k dqesVh }kjk fuEure Lrj dh foospuk vkjksihx.k dks ykHk igqWpkus ds mn~ns'; ls dh xbZ izrhr gksrh gSA Fkkuk izHkkjh v'ouh jkBkSj }kjk Hkh vafre izfrosnu is'k djrs le; izdj.k esa mijksDr

lk{; dk lgh voyksdu ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls mldh drZO; esa ykijokgh Hkh nf'kZr gksrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk State of Gujrat Vs Kishanbhai etc., Crl. Appeal No. 1485 of 2008, decided on 07.01.2014 esa nh xbZ fgnk;r vuqlkj x`g lfpo] N-x- 'kklu dks mijksDr iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh djus gsrq vuq'kalk fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% x`g lfpo] N-x- 'kklu dks bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr Hkstdj vuq'kalk dh tkrh gS fd izdj.k ds foospd y{e.k dqesVh ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh v'ouh jkBkSj ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkWp dh tkos rFkk tkWp mijkar tkWp ds fu"d"kZ ls bl U;k;ky; dks voxr djk;k tkosA "

4. Thereafter, the petitioners made several representations to the Director

General of Police through Senior Superintendent of Police to expunge

the disparaging remarks, but the same could not be considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the

petitioners have acted in discharge of their duties, therefore, without

giving any opportunity of hearing to them, the observations made by

the Learned Sessions Judge about the dereliction of duty etc and the

direction given by him to initiate departmental enquiry would be against

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State (Govt. of

NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary reported in 2019 (11) SCC

575 .

6. Return has been filed by the State opposing the averment made in

these writ petitions and justifying the initiation of action against the

petitioners for the negligent performance of their duty by the Learned

Session Judge.

7. In the likewise judgment while passing the direction in session trial

against the Investigating Officer in the case cited supra. The supreme

court in the case of State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) has

observed at para 42, 43 and 45 which are reproduced as under :-

42. While passing disparaging remarks against the police officials and directing prosecution against them, in our considered view, the High Court has failed to bear in mind the well settled principles of law that should govern the courts before making disparaging remarks. Any disparaging remarks and direction to initiate departmental action/prosecution against the persons whose conduct comes into consideration before the court would have serious impact on their official career.

43. In S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju this Court held as under :- ( SCC PP. 113 and 116-17, paras 9 and 13-14)

"9. Stung by the remarks made against him without even a hearing......."

* * *

13. We have also to point out a grievous procedural error committed by the High Court. Even assuming for argument's sake that for expunging the remarks against Respondents 2 and 3 the conduct of the appellant required scrutiny and merited adverse comment, the principles of natural justice required the High Court to have issued notice to the appellant and heard him before passing adverse remarks against him if it was considered necessary. By its failure the High Court has failed to render elementary justice to the appellant.

14. In State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, it was held as follows: (AIR P707, para 10)

10. "If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in

expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve."

This ratio has been followed in R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar (to which one of us was a party). Judged in the light of the above tests, it may be seen that none of the tests is satisfied in this case. It is indeed regrettable that the High Court should have lightly passed adverse remarks of a very serious nature affecting the character and professional competence and integrity of the appellant in purported desire to render justice to Respondents 2 and 3 in the petition filed by them for expunction of adverse remarks made against them."

(emphasis supplied)

44. XXXXXXXXX

45. Since the High Court has passed strictures against the police officials who were involved in the investigation in FIR No. 559 of 1997 without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the disparaging remarks are liable to be

set aside.

8. Following the law laid down by the supreme court in the case of

Pankaj Chaudhary (Supra) the observation made by the Learned

Session Judge against the petitioners at para 25 in the judgment of

acquittal dated 21.10.2020 are hereby expunged and the

consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to

the impugned judgment is also quashed.

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

Jyoti