Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Karan Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 25 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3935 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DILIP KARAN NAYAK S/O DAYA KARAN NAYAK, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB INSPECTOR R/O
P.S. CHIMANGANJ, DISTRICT UJJAIN
HALMUKAM - GRAM-HARPALPUR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROIGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.
CHIMANGANJMANDI, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VISHAL PANWAR-PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the
adverse remarks given against the applicant while passing the impugned
judgement dated 06.05.2019 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.
No.70/2018.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 25-Jan-23 5:49:24
PM
Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 07.05.2017 at about
17.45 hours, driver of the bus bearing registration No.MP13-P-0605 drove the
vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed a boy aged about 14 years and caused
his death, due to which people set the bus on fire. After receiving the
information, Constable Roopsingh Chouhan and Satpal rushed to the spot and
finding two persons namely, Jitendra and Mohit setting the bus on fire, arrested
and brought them to the police station Chimanganjmandi, Ujjain where S.I.-
Jitendra Mishra on the basis of oral information given by Constable Roopsingh
Chouhan lodged the FIR against them. After investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against them, trial was concluded and vide impugned judgement dated
06.05.2019, they were acquitted by passing adverse remarks against Roopsingh
Chouhan and Satpal alongwith the applicant holding that applicant while
investigating the case had recorded admissible confessional statements of the
accused persons in pursuance of which nothing was to be seized.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Court has made adverse
remarks against one Jitendra Mishra, Inspector and present applicant who is
working as Sub-Inspector in the police department. The petition filed by
Jitendra Mishra for quashment of adverse remarks has already been allowed
vide judgment dated 29.9.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 32484/2021. The case of
the present applicant is identical to the case of Jitendra Mishra. He further
submits that without giving opportunity of hearing, such remarks cannot be
passed hence, the same is liable to be expunged. To bolster his submissions,
counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgements :-
(i) The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703.
(ii) K. P. Singh Kushwaha S/o Shivajisingh vs. State of M. P., 2005 Cr.L.R.
(MP) 248.
(iii) Sushil Ranjan Singh and others vs. State of M.P., 2006(5) MPHT 488
(DB)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 25-Jan-23 5:49:24
PM
(iv) Taiyyab Ali Khan vs. State of M.P. & Another in Criminal Revision
No.43/2014 decided on 13.03.2014.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that as per
directions given by the Trial Court, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated
against the applicant as well as the police officials but he fairly conceded that
applicant had not investigated the matter and he only lodged the FIR.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that learned Trial Court vide impugned
judgement dated 06.05.2019 passed the following adverse remarks against the
applicant :-
“12- ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[ k djuk vko';d gksxk fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ftrsUnz
feJk ,oa fnyhi dj.k uk;j }kjk ,sls eseksjs.Me cuk fy, x, ftuds vk/kkj ij
dksbZ tIrh dh dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZ vkSj ,sls eseksjs.Me dks
laLohd`fr gksus ds dkj.k os lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gq,] lkjh dk;Zokgh
vkSipkfjdrk LO:i dh gqbZ A
7. It is apparent from the aforesaid remarks itself that the same were passed
under the impression that applicant was the Investigating Officer in the case,
while perusal of the record reveals that applicant did not investigate the matter
but he only lodged FIR (Exhibit-P/10) on the basis of oral
information/complaint given by the Constable Roopsingh Chouhan. The
disclosure statements Exhibit-P/8 and P/9 said to be made by the accused
persons were recorded by the Investigating Officer Dilip Karan Nayar and not
by the applicant hence, the same is liable to be expunged.
8. In this regard, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Naim (supra) is also relevant,
wherein the guidelines are prescribed before making disparaging remarks against
persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 25-Jan-23 5:49:24
PM
of law in the cases to be decided by them. Relevant para of the said judgement
is as follows :-
The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional nature in
which the learned judge should have exercised his inherent jurisdiction
under s. 561-A Cr. P. C. in respect of the observations complained of by
the State Government ? 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 any body, 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, fairplay 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.
9. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that applicant was
neither issued any notice nor was afforded any opportunity of hearing therefore,
in view of the aforesaid discussion, on this ground also, the adverse remarks
given by the Trial Court vide impugned judgement is liable to be expunged.
Thus, I am of the considered view that the remarks given by the learned Trial
Court vide impugned judgement were uncalled for and could not have been
made. Accordingly, they are hereby expunged. Obviously, no action would be
required by the non-applicants/State against the applicant, pursuant to the said
remarks, as made by the learned Trial Court in para-12 of the impugned
judgement.
10. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent
mentioned herein-above, with no order as to costs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 25-Jan-23 5:49:24
PM
C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 25-Jan-23 5:49:24
PM
