Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 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 4 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51506 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ROOP SINGH CHAUHAN S/O LATE MANGILAL
CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT. SERVANT R/O P.S. GHATTIYA DIST. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. THROUGH P.S.
CHIMANGANJMANDI DISTRICT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. DISTRICT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS MAMTA SHANDILYA - G.A.)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an application u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C against the adverse remarks
by learned Sessions Judge, Ujjain dated 6.5.2019 in ST No.70/2018.
Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 07.05.2017 at about
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 05-01-2023
09:58:06
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, the applicant Constable Roopsingh Chouhan 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 the applicant
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 the applicant, Satpal and
Jitendra Mishra holding that Jitendra Mishra while investigating the case had
recorded admissible confessional statements of the accused persons in
pursuance of which nothing was to be seized.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under similar
circumstances, a co-ordinate bench has already quashed adverse remarks in the
petition filed by one Jitendra Mishra in M.Cr.C. No.32484/2021 by judgment
dated 29.9.2022. He further submits that applicant was not the investigating
officer in the matter. On his oral information the FIR was registered. The trial
court has committed an error while passing adverse remarks against the
applicant without giving any opportunity of hearing. 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
(ii) K. P. Singh Kushwaha S/o Shivajisingh vs. State of M. P., 2005
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 05-01-2023
09:58:06
Cr.L.R. (MP) 248.
(iii) Sushil Ranjan Singh and others vs. State of M.P., 2006(5) MPHT
488 (DB).
(iv) Taiyyab Ali Khan vs. State of M.P. & Another in Criminal
Revision No.43/2014 decided on 13.03.2014.
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 she fairly conceded that
applicant had not investigated the matter and he only lodged the FIR.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the record reveals that learned Trial Court vide impugned
judgement dated 06.05.2019 passed the following adverse remarks against the
applicant :-
;g Hkh mYys[k djuk vko';d gksxk fd tc :iflag pkSgku dks vfHk;kstu
lk{kh Øekad 4 ds :i esa ijhf{kr fd;k x;k vkSj mUgksaus viuh izkFkfedh
vkSj c;kuksa dk leFkZu ugha fd;k rFkk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh ds-th- oekZ us bl
lk{kh :iflag pkSgku dks i{kfojks/kh ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k vkSj u gh mldk dksbZ
izfrijh{k.k fd;k fd mlds }kjk izkFkfedh esa bl ckr dk mYys[k dSls vk;k fd
mUgksaus ftrsUnz vkSj eksfgr dks vkx yxkrs gq, ns[kkA bl rjg Qfj;knh iqfyl
lk{kh :iflag pkSgku vkSj lriky ctkt] vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ,oa yksd
vfHk;kstd us U;k; dks vlQy dj fn;k vkSj ,slk vijk/k tks lkoZtfud LFkku
ij lc yksxksa ds lkeus gqvk gS dso y iqfyl ra= dh vlQyrk ds dkj.k U;k;
ikus ls oafpr gks x;kA
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 05-01-2023
09:58:06
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."
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.
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: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 05-01-2023
09:58:06
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 05-01-2023
09:58:06
