Karnataka High Court
Smt Revathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44820
WP No. 2211 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2211 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. REVATHI
POLICE INSPECTOR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
COASTAL SECURITY POLICE
KUMUTA, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581 332.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALORE WOMEN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by B BANGALORE-560 001.
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High Court 2. SRI NAVEENSEQUEIRA
of Karnataka
S/O MONTHUSEQUEIRA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT CHEMBUGUDDE
THOKKOTTU
MANGALURU-575 017.
3. ROSAMMA
W/O MADHU M.B.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
MANGALORE EAST POLICE-574 154.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44820
WP No. 2211 of 2023
(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN A., ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASHING
PORTION OF ORDER DATED 29.11.2022 IN SPL.CASE
NO.43/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/FTSC-II (POCSO)
D.K.MANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT
THAT "PW6 SMT.ROSAMMA THE SUB-INSPECTOR AND PW8
SMT.REVATHITHE INSPECTOR OF THE THEN WOMEN POLICE
STATION, MANGALORE CITY ARE DIRECTED TO PAY
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,00,000/- TO THE ACCUSED OUT OF
THEIR OWN WALLET WITHIN TWO MONTHS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Sessions Judge passed the judgment of
acquittal dated 29.11.2022 acquitting the accused therein for
the offences punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, r/w
Section 354 and 506 of IPC. In the said judgment, the accused
therein were acquitted solely on the ground that P.W.1 victim
had turned hostile in the examination-in-chief and nothing was
elicited in the cross examination to support the case of the
prosecution.
2. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by observing
that the accused had suffered injustice and humiliation at the
hands of the Investigating Officer, and also directed the
Investigating Officer to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakh as
compensation to the accused. Taking exception of the same,
this petition is filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:44820
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
(NCT OF DELHI) -vs- PANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS at
para 42 to 45, has held as follows:
42. While passi ng disparagi ng remarks agai nst
the police officials and direc ti ng pros ec ution
agai nst them, i n our c onsidered view, t he Hi gh
Court has failed t o bear in mi nd the well set tled
pri nciples of law that shoul d govern the courts
bef ore ma ki ng dispara gi ng remarks. A ny
disparagi ng remarks and direc tion to i nitiate
depart mental action/pr osecution against the
pers ons whos e conduct comes into
consideration bef ore the c ourt woul d hav e
seri ous impact on their official ca reer.
43. In S .K. Vis wambar an v. E. K oyakunju and
Others (1987) 2 SCC 109, this Court held as
under:-
"9 . St ung by the remarks made a gai nst him
without ev en a heari ng.............".
13. We ha ve also to poi nt out a griev ous
proc edural error committed by the High Cour t.
Even ass umi ng f or argument's s ake that for
expungi ng the r emarks a gai nst R espondents 2
and 3 the conduct of the appellant required
scrutiny and mer ited adverse c omment , the
pri nciples of natural justic e req uired the High
Court to have issued notice to the appellant
and heard him before passing adverse remarks
agai nst him if it was c onsidered necess ary. By
its fail ure the Hi gh C ourt has f ailed to render
elementary j ustice to the app ellant.
14. ...........In Sta te of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim AIR
1964 SC 703, it was held as follows:
10............"If ther e is one principle of c ardinal
import ance i n the admi nistration of jus tice, it is
this: the proper f reedom and independenc e of
NC: 2023:KHC:44820
Judges and Magistrat es mus t be mai ntai ned and
they must be allowed to perf orm their f unctions
freely and f earl essly and wi t hout undue
interf erence by a nybody, ev en by thi s Court. At
the sam e time, it is equally nec ess ary that i n
expressing t heir opi ni ons Judges and
Magist rates must be gui ded by c onsiderati ons
of justic e, fair play and restrai nt . It is not
infrequent t hat s weepi ng gener alisations def eat
the very purpos e for whic h they are made. It
has been judicially recognised t hat i n the
matt er of ma ki ng disparagi ng rema rks agains t
pers ons or authorities whos e conduct com es
into c onsiderati on bef ore cour ts of law in cas es
to be decided b y them, it is releva nt to
consider (a) whether the party whos e conduct
is in q uestion is bef ore the c ourt or has an
opport unity of explaining or def ending hims elf;
(b) whet her there is evidence on rec ord bearing
on tha t conduct j ustifyi ng the remarks; and (c)
whether it is necessary f or the deci sion of the
case, as a n i ntegral part t hereof, to animadv ert
on that conduc t. It has also been recognis ed
that j udicial pronounc ements must be judicial
in nature, and should not nor mally depart from
sobriety, modera tion and r eserve."
This rati o has been f ollowed in R .K.
Lakshma nan v . A .K. S ri nivas an and Another
(1975) 2 SCC 4 66 and Niranjan Patnaik v.
Sashibhusan Ka r and A nother (1986) 2 SCC 569
(to which one of us was a part y). Judged in the
light of the above tests , it may be s een that
none of the tests is satisfied i n t his cas e. It is
indeed r egret tabl e that the Hi gh C ourt shoul d
have lightly pass ed adverse remarks of a very
seri ous nat ure aff ec ting the c haracter and
prof essional competence and i nt egrity of the
appellant i n purported desire to render justic e
to Respondents 2 and 3 in the petiti on filed by
them for ex punction of advers e remarks mad e
agai nst them."
[emphasis s upplied]
NC: 2023:KHC:44820
44. In Manish Dixit and Others v. State of
Rajastha n (2001) 1 SCC 596, this C ourt hel d as
under:-
"42. .........Suc h disparaging remarks a nd the
direc tion to initiate department al ac tion agai ns t
him could ha ve a very serious im pact on his
official career.
43. Ev en t hose apart, this C ourt has repeat edly
cauti oned that before any castigati ng remarks
are made by the court agai nst any pers on,
partic ularly when s uc h remarks c ould ens ure
seri ous c ons equences on the f uture career of
the person c onc erned, he s hould hav e been
given an opportunity of being heard i n the
matt er i n respect of the propos ed remarks or
strict ures . Suc h a n opportuni ty is the basic
requirem ent, for, ot herwis e the off endi ng
remar ks woul d be in viola tion of t he pri nciples
of natural justic e. In this case suc h an
opport unity was not given to PW 30 (Dev endra
Kumar S harm a). (State of U .P. v . Mohd. Naim
AIR 1964 SC 703, Ch. Jage Ra m, Ins pector of
Police and A nother v. Hans Raj Midha (1972) 1
SCC 181, R.K . L aks hmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan
and A not her (1975) 2 SCC 466, Niranjan
Patnai k v. Sas hibhusa n Kar and Anot her (1986 )
2 SCC 569 a nd St ate of Karnataka v. R egistrar
Gener al, Hi gh C ourt of Kar nataka (2000) 7 SCC
333).
(emphasis s upplied)
45. Since t he Hi gh C ourt has passed strictures
agai nst the police officials who were involv ed in
the inves tigati on i n FIR No.559 of 1997 wit hout
affordi ng an opport uni ty of hearing t o them,
the disparagi ng remarks are liable t o be s et
aside.
5. Admittedly, the survivor turned hostile in the
examination-in-chief and she was subjected to cross
examination by the prosecution and in the examination,
nothing was elicited to prove the case of the prosecution.
NC: 2023:KHC:44820
6. The petitioner-Investigating Officer cannot be
faulted or held negligent when the victim survivor has turned
hostile and in the absence of any material that the investigation
conducted by the petitioner was not fair and proper, and is
arbitrary, the impugned disparaging remarks made against the
petitioner requires to be quashed. Even otherwise, the learned
Sessions Judge, without providing an opportunity to the
petitioner to defend herself, has made the disparaging remarks
and the same is in violation of the principles of justice.
Therefore, the disparaging remarks made in violation of the
natural justice and also in the absence of any incriminating
material, are required to be expunged.
7. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ petition is allowed
ii) Judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2022
passed by the Addl. District and Sessions
Judge/FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K., Mangaluru in
Spl.Case No.43/2022, insofar it relates to the
extent that PW6 and PW8 are directed to pay
the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
accused out of their own wallet, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
