Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Home ... on 28 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28784 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA SONI S/O LATE SHRI B.K.
SONI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT
(PRESENTLY POSTED AS SHO
BANGANGA) POLICE STATION
BANGANGA, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAWAT - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
OF MADHYA PRADESH,
ADDRESS- 3RD FLOOR,
VALLABH BHAWAN II, GOVT.
OF M.P., 4TH FLOOR,
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN I, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, STATE OF M.P.,
ADDRESS, JAIL ROAD,
JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
WEST ZONE, INDROE, ADDRESS:
1ST FLOOR, SATELLITE
BUILDING, MOTI TABELA,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 12-03-2024
15:00:49
2
CHHATRIBAGH, INDORE,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for order this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been
preferred by the petitioner for expunction of adverse remarks made against him
by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Indore in judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed in
Sessions Trial No.255/2016.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused Mahesh Bairagi was tried for
offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the
allegation that prior to 26.08.2014 he committed the murder of one Kavita
Raina along with his friend Tikam Devda in I.D.A. Colony, Flat No.F/20
Musakhedy, Indore and for the purpose of saving himself from the crime he cut
the body of Kavita Raina into parts and threw it at various places and also burnt
his cloths and wiped out the blood from the room where he had killed Kavita
Raina.
3. By judgment dated 18.05.2018 the trial Court acquitted the accused from
the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. However, in
paragraphs No.69 it observed that the explanation given by the Investigating
Officer, the petitioner, as regards the matter stated therein is made up,
unbelievable and false. In paragraph No. 115 it observed that the statement of
the Investigating Officer is against the statement of the doctor. In para No.116
it observed that the Investigating Officer has given false statement in paragraph
No.147 of his cross examination. In para 131 also similar observation was
made. In para 135 it observed that the conduct of the Police in the matter is
suspicious and objectionable In para 155 it observed that deliberate negligence
has been committed by the Investigating Officer who has not followed the legal
procedure. In para 204 it observed that the witnesses made by the Investigation
Officer were not independent witnesses. In para 205 it observed that the
investigating Officer had been partial towards the accused which is
condemnable and unwarranted. In para 206 finding was recorded that the
Investigating Officer has not impartially investigated the matter. In para
No.220 a copy of the judgment was directed to be send to the Director General
of Police for future guidance and necessary action.
4. The aforesaid adverse remarks which have been made by the trial Court
in the aforesaid paragraphs have been challenged by the petitioner who was the
Investigating Officer of the matter in this petition primarily on the ground that
they were made without affording him any opportunity of being heard and by
violating the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that as a
consequence of the aforesaid adverse remarks the Police authorities have taken
harsh action against the petitioner and notices have been issued to him by the
department for initiation of discipanary action against him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has relied
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Mohammad.
Naim, AIR 1964 SC, 703, Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kawar Bhan and others,
2014(4) SCC 47, State of West Bangal vs. Babu Chakrawarti, 2004(12) SCC
201, of this Court in R. Rajan vs. State of M.P., 2001 (1) MPLJ, 660, and
Nitesh Bhargava vs. State of M.P. and another, MCRC No.8528/2018 decided
on 07.05.2018.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the
adverse remarks which have been made against the petitioner in the judgment.
7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the record.
8. In State of U.P. vs. Mohammad. Naim (supra) the Supreme Court has
held as under:
"11. 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 Section
561-A CrPC 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, 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 recognized
that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature,
and should not normally depart from sobriety,
moderation and reserve."
9. In Babu Chakawarti (supra) the Supreme Court has held that making of
disparaging remarks or passing stricture against the Investigating Officer
without affording an opportunity of being heard to him is not justified. It was
further held that such remarks should not be made unless they are necessary for
decision of the case. In Om Prakash Chautala (supra) the aforesaid principals
have been reiterated.
10. In R. Rajan (supra) it has been held by this Court as under:
"5. It is, thus, clear that if the, learned Judge intended to
make any remark against the petitioner, the latter should
have been given an opportunity of being heard. The
petitioner was the Investigating Officer and the remarks
were made in the judgment behind the back of the
petitioner without affording him an opportunity of being
heard. Thus, such remarks are uncalled for, unjust and are
likely to adversely affect the career of the petitioner.
6. In view of above, the remarks having been made by the
learned Judge behind the back of the petitioner without
giving him an opportunity of being heard deserves to be
expunged. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The stricture
passed against the petitioner is expunged."
11. In the present case it may be seen that though the trial Court has
not specifically directed the department to take any departmental action
against the petitioner yet the fact remains that on the basis of the aforesaid
remarks the higher authorities have initiated preliminary proceedings
against the petitioner which may jeopardize his career prospect. Thus
passing disparaging remarks against the petitioner behind his back without
giving him opportunity of being heard has certainly violated the principle of
natural justice. The adverse remarks against the petitioner are not
sustainable in the eyes of law and deserved to be pxpunged.
12. Even assuming for sake of arguments that the adverse remarks
against the petitioner were justified, the trial Court should have proceeded to
deliver the judgment and thereafter directed issuance of show cause notice to
the petitioner and institute separate proceedings against him for the said
purpose. After affording the petitioner adequate opportunity of being heard, the
trial Court could have passed such remarks, if any, against the petitioner as it
might have been fit.
13. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed and the adverse remarks in paragraphs No.69, 115, 116, 131, 135, 155,
204, 205, 206, 219 and 220 of the judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by the
Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Indore in Sessions Trial No.255/2016 are hereby expunged.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
