Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet Bhasin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1614 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHOK RAWAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for the appellants/State
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.1/petitioner.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent No.2/CBI.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1615 of 2022
NAVNEET BHASIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar - Advocate for
the appellants.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent No.5/CBI.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.6/petitioner.
&
WRIT APPEAL No. 1616 of 2022
ATMARAM SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
2 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
Appearance:
Shri R.B.S.Tomar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent No.5/CBI.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.6/petitioner.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 16th Day of June 2025)
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Heard on I.A.No.8856/2022 filed in W.A.No1615/2022 and
I.A.No.8854/2022 filed in W.A.No.1616/2022 seeking leave of the court
to file both the appeals.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, same are allowed.
3. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, all these three writ
appeals are heard analogously and decided by a common order.
4. However, these three writ appeals have been preferred against the
judgment dt.28.11.2022 passed by the learned Writ Court in
W.P.No.7097/2022, out of which W.A.No.1614 of 2022 is preferred at
the instance of State of M.P., W.A.No.1615/2022 has been preferred by
appellant No.1 Navneet Bhasin, who was posted as S.P. Gwalior
between the period 16.05.2018 to 26.07.2020 and appellant No.2 Amit
Sanghi, who remained posted as S.S.P. Gwalior between the period w.e.f.
27.07.2020 till March 2023. W.A.No.1616/2022 has been filed by
Atmaram Sharma - appellant No.1, Gurudutt Sharma - appellant No.2
3 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
and Sanjay Chaturvedi - appellant No.3, who were SDOPs Karera,
District Shivpuri at the relevant point of time.
5. For factual clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.1615/2022 are taken
into consideration.
6. For appreciating the dispute in detail, following dates and events
are important :-
S.No. Date Events
1 Between 16.05.2018 to Appellant No.1/Navneet Bhasin remained posted
26.07.2020 as Superintendent of Police, Gwalior.
2 w.e.f. 27.07.2020 till Appellant No.2/Amit Sanghi remained posted as
March 2023 S.S.P. Gwalior.
3 10/08/19 The dispute took place between father of writ
petitioner late Shri Suresh Rawat and Khemu
Shakya.
4 10/08/19 FIR was lodged at Crime No.81/2019 on the
complaint of Khemu Shakya against deceased
Suresh Rawat under Section 294, 323, 506 of
IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
5 10/08/19 At 18.10 O' clock the deceased Suresh Rawat
committed suicide in police lockup.
6 10/08/19 The postmortem of body of deceased Suresh
Rawat was performed and videography was
done.
7 10/08/19 The matter was referred for judicial enquiry
under Section 176 of Cr.P.C.
8 10/08/19 Promptly, appellant No.1 reported the matter to
the National Human Rights Commissioner (vide
Annexure A/4).
9 10/08/19 The intimation was forwarded to the State
Human Rights Commission Bhopal regarding
death of deceased Suresh Rawat (Vide Annexure
A/5).
10 10/08/19 Considering the negligent work of the police
officers, who were present at the time when the
4 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
deceased Suresh Rawat committed suicide in the
police lockup, were placed under suspension
vide order No. 33/2019 on 10.08.2019.
11 11/08/19 The offence under Section 302, 34 IPC at Crime
No.295/2019 was registered for maintaining law
and order situation against the erring police
officials in Police Station Bhitarwar without any
delay. Thereafter, because of crime related to
Police Station Belgada, therefore, the same was
registered at Crime no.82/2019 at Police Station
Belgada.
12 11/08/19 A request was made by appellant No.1 to I.G.
Gwalior Zone, Gwalior for transferring of
investigation to be carried out by a gazetted
officer o the other district, so that a fair and
impartial investigation can be undertaken.
13 12/08/19 The I.G. Gwalior Zone, Gwalior without any
further delay, returned the investigation to
SDOP Karera District Shivpuri.
14 07.11.2019, 7.11.2019 The applications were received for revocation of
18.12.2019 and, suspension orders.
17.02.2020
15 22.02.2020 Considering the request made by the employees
and looking towards the length of period of
suspension served by them, the suspension order
was revoked.
7. Thereafter a petition vide W.P.No.7097/2022 was filed by Ashok
Rawat (son of the deceased Suresh Rawat), in which petitioner sought
investigation of case by CBI, departmental action against culprits of
crime and to get compensation from the respondents/State.
8. Learned Writ Court after hearing rival submissions passed the
order in which direction was given for handing over of case to the CBI
and Rs.20 Lakhs by way of compensation were directed to be paid by
the State. Said Rs.20 Lakhs were directed to be recovered from the
5 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
erring police personnel as discussed in para 90 of the impugned order.
Besides that, adverse remarks have been passed against the appellants as
they were holding different posts at the relevant point of time. Therefore,
appellants including the State and other officers are before this Court
against the observations in the impugned order specially in para 68, 71,
75, 79, 83, 89 and 90 of the impugned order. Therefore, appellants are
before this Court.
9. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that
adverse remarks have been made without affording opportunity of
hearing to the appellants. Appellants Navneet Bhasin, Amit Sanghi and
three SDOPs were not before learned Writ Court as party respondents.
Only S.P. Gwalior, District Gwalior and SHO Police Station Bhitarwar,
District Gwalior were made party in official capacity and not by
individual names, therefore, in the absence of being heard such harsh
order has been passed which is illegal and suffers from the vice of
principal of natural justice.
10. There were no pleadings or reliefs claimed against the present
appellants in the writ petition. Therefore, in absence of any proper
pleadings and evidence produced before this Court regarding alleged
lapse/guilt of present appellants, impugned order does not deserve to
stand. Appellants relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the
6 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
case of Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others
(AIR 1988 SC 2181) & Punjab Financial Corporation & Another Vs.
M/s Garg Steel & Another (2010) 15 SCC 546.
11. It is further submitted that adverse remarks can not be made unless
the person concerned is given opportunity of hearing and to show cause
his lapse, if any. In the present case, neither opportunity of hearing was
provided to the appellants nor any notices were given to them nor they
were made party in the proceeding. In absence thereof, impugned order
deserves to be set aside.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants relied judgments of Apex Court
in the case of Dr.Dilip Kumar Deka and another Vs. State of Assam
and another (1996) 6 SCC 234, State of Karnataka Vs. Registrar
General, High Court of Karnataka (2000) 7 SCC 333, Manish Dixit
and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (2001) 1 SCC 596, State of W.B.
And others Vs. Babu Chakraborthy (2004) 12 SCC 201, Samya Sett
Vs. Sambhu Sarkar and another (2005) 6 SCC 767, Om Prakash
Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and others (2014) 5 SCC 417 and
Manish S. Pardasani and others Vs. Inspector State Excise and
others (2019) 2 SCC 660 and judgment of this court in Sushil Ranjan
Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. 2006 (5) MPHT 488.
7 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
13. It is further submitted that findings recorded by learned Single
Judge are based upon the presumptions and are not based upon any
cogent evidence. In some of paragraphs, contradictory findings were
given. Counsel for the appellants referred paragraphs 51, 53 and 54 to
bring home the contradictions. Only because the suspension orders of
some suspended employees were revoked in February 2020, a
presumption is raised by the writ court that undue benefit is extended to
the accused persons. However, such suspension was revoked in view of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
Vs. Union of India and others (2015) 7 SCC 291. Therefore, writ court
proceeded on erroneous assumptions and caused illegality.
14. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants
that CBI has conducted its enquiry and filed charge sheet against
accused persons for offence under Section 342 and 220 of IPC. Besides
that, judicial enquiry under Section 176 of Cr.P.C. was also conducted
and the enquiry officer did not find the role of the appellants as guilty.
Once CBI filed the charge sheet, then the offence is under consideration
of trial court and trial court would ensure fair trial. Therefore, writ court
had no occasion to interfere in the matter but writ court proceeded on
assumptions that appellants are guilty of misconduct and directed the
8 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
Director General of Police to institute an appropriate proceeding against
them.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred the fact that there
was no occasion to pay compensation, that too, from the appellants
without having any involvement in the case. Trial would reveal the truth.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner/complainant of
the case opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order.
According to him, compensation can be given in particular fact
situation. Not only this, the role of appellants was incriminating.
Therefore, they were punished by the writ court. For this purpose, no
opportunity of hearing was required to be given. He prayed for dismissal
of all the writ appeals.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
18. This is the case where appellants are either State of M.P. Or its
instrumentalists and/or the officers, who suffered adverse remarks and
compensation to the respondent/petitioner.
19. Petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India before the learned Single Judge seeking following reliefs:-
i. That respondent may kindly be directed to initiate
departmental action against culprits of Crime
No.295/2019 and conclude the same within stipulated
time.
ii That investigation of Crime No.295/2019
Registered at Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior
9 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
be transferred to CBI for further investigation and
accordingly they be directed to submit final report within
stipulated time.
iii. That respondent be further directed to pay
compensation to the petitioner/victim of such custodial
death to the tune of Rs.1 crore which be further directed
to be recovered from pocket of culprits.
iv. The cost of the litigation may also kindly be
awarded to the petitioner.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case same may
kindly be granted to the petitioner.
20. On perusal of reliefs, it appears that the petitioner only wanted the
matter to be investigated from CBI, sought compensation and to initiate the
departmental action against the culprits of Crime No.295/2019. Therefore,
ultimately relief of petitioner was considered and allowed.
21. The prayer of the petitioner was addressed and grievances were
redressed. The matter was taken up by the CBI, investigation carried out and
charge sheet has also been filed purportedly for offence under Section 342
and 220 of IPC. Trial is underway.
22. So far as departmental action is concerned, it is the domain of
departmental authority which can look into it and decide on its own merits. So
far as compensation is concerned it, is a grey area because in writ petition,
scope of grant of compensation is limited because allegations in writ petition
can meet through pleadings only and no scope of calling witnesses or
evidence exists. Thus, compensation ought not to have been awarded in
present case.
10 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
23. Most important aspect in the controversy appears to be pleadings in this
regard and opportunity of hearing.
24. So far as pleadings in writ proceedings are concerned, Apex Court in
the case of Bharat Singh (supra) held that writ proceedings are different
than civil proceedings and given guidance as under :-
13......In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a
point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the
party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must
plead and prove such facts by evidence which must
appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent,
from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or
the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the
writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may
be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it
will not be out of place to point out that in this regard
there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code
of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-
affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written
statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be
pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not
only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts
have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that
has been raised before us PG NO 1060 by the appellants
is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have
entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit.
25. Similarly in the case of Punjab Financial Corporation (supra), Apex
Court in regard to pleadings has held as under :-
"Time has come when this Court needs to emphasise that
in cases where writ of mandamus is sought, High Courts
should be very particular in finding out from the
averments of the writ petition whether there exist proper
pleadings. In the present case, arguments are advanced
on the basis of promissory estoppel, waiver and breach of
contract without proper averments being made in the writ
petition. Be that as it may, the facts indicate that, by this
writ petition, the original petitioner [Borrower] has
11 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
sought damages and enforcement of contractual
commitments which, in our view, were beyond the scope
of a writ petition. Adjustment of accounts and
enforcement of back- to-back transactions with a party
with whom there was no privity of contract coupled with
the claim for damages are all contractual matters un-
enforceable by way of writ petitions.
26. Therefore, in absence of any proper pleadings regarding injuries
caused, misfeasance and damages caused, scantily pleaded petition cannot be
entertained.
27. Another aspect deserves consideration is opportunity of hearing. Apex
Court in the case of Dr.Dilip Kumar Deka (supra) while relying upon the
earlier judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Naim
(AIR 1964 SC 703) reiterated the test to be applied in similar fact situation in
following manner -
6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question
of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or
authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration
before a Court of law in cases to be decided by it were
succinctly laid down by this Court in State in Uttar
Pradesh vs. Moh. Naim (1964) 2 SCR 363. Those tests
are:
(i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is
before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or
defending himself;
(ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that
conduct justifying the remarks; and
(iii) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case,
as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.
The above tests have been quoted with approval and
applied by this Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage
Ram v. Hans Raj Midha AIR 1972 SC 1140, R.K.
Lakshmanan v. A.K.Srinivasan AIR 1975 SC 1741 and
Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar air 1986 SC 819.
12 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
28. This view has been affirmed consistently by the Apex Court in the
cases of Manish Dixit (supra), Samya Seth (supra), State of Karnataka
(supra), Manish S. Pardasani (supra). Apex Court time and again reiterated
that without affording opportunity of hearing, no adverse remarks ought to be
passed. In the judgment of Manish S. Pardasani (supra), Apex Court held
that writ court does not hold enquiry on disputed facts. Such issues in the
opinion of the court could be decided properly and in accordance with law by
a fact finding body where the parties would have got an opportunity to lead
evidence and explain the reasons. Not only this, even Apex Court deprecated
the practice of making adverse remarks and passing strictures against judicial/
administrative authorities, whose order/action is under challenge. So far as
possible such dispersing /harsh remarks and strictures are directed to be
avoided.
29. Looking to the present case, it appears that no opportunity of hearing
was provided to the officers, who were involved in the case. In fact, they were
not party in the lis. Sanjay Chaturvedi, SDO(P) Karera, District Shivpuri
(Appellant No.3 in W.A.No.1616/2022) appeared before the Writ Court on
28.11.2022 and pleaded that he was recently transferred and handed over the
case diary. However, all investigating officers, who were according to the writ
court, were casual in their disposition, were given punishment. Once they
were not made party to the lis and were not given sufficient opportunity, then
proceedings against them deserves correction.
13 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
30. Some suspended employees were re-instated after six months in
February 2020. That was the domain of administrative authority. In fact,
Apex Court in the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra) has directed authorities
to re assess the need of suspension on regular intervals. Therefore, if
employees are reinstated after revocation of suspension, then adverse
inference cannot be drawn.
31. So far as direction for investigation through CBI is concerned, that has
been followed by the appellants and counsel for CBI informs this Court that
charge sheet has already been filed under Section 342 and 220 of IPC against
accused persons. Therefore, that part of the order has already been complied
with.
32. So far as direction given to the Director General of Police for
conducting an enquiry is concerned, that can be carried out after the judgment
passed in the trial by the trial court. If in the trial any mischief or casualness
in investigation is found, then Director General of Police can take into
consideration said aspect and thereafter can proceed as per law.
33. So far as imposition of cost/compensation of Rs.20 lacs is concerned,
matter is sub judice before trial court. Not only that, it would amount to
preempting the controversy if the order of cost and compensation is permitted
to stand because it reflects alleged mens rea, casualness and/or culpability of
officers concerned. Since matter is under consideration before trial court, such
order awarding cost/ compensation deserves to be diluted.
14 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
34. When investigation was transferred from Police Station Belgada to
Police Station Karera, then any motive can not be attached to the alleged
irregularities and/or casualness of appellants of W.A.No.1615/2022 (Navneet
Bhasin and Amit Sanghi) because they were at the helm of affairs at District
Gwalior and not at District Shivpuri, where Police Station Karera falls.
Similarly, three investigating officers (SDOPs), who are appellants of WA
No.1616/2022, proceeded with investigation and were as submitted in fact of
the opinion that offence under Section 306 of IPC read with Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act is made out prima facie but that
aspect/submission was not taken into account.
35. Be that as it may.
36. However, since no opportunity of hearing was provided to all these
officers, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside on that point
alone, but still for bringing clarity matter is discussed on merits also.
37. In the conspectus on the facts and circumstances of the case, Writ
Appeals preferred by the appellants are hereby allowed. Impugned order
dt.28.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside partly. However,
in absence of any interim order, the matter was already referred to CBI and
CBI filed charge sheet. That portion of the order stands affirmed.
38. It is also clarified that after trial is over, Director General of Police may
take a holistic view about the case and if it appears to him that some mischief
or casualness has been displayed by the officers, then Director General of
15 WA-1614/2022, 1615/2022 & 1616/2022
Police may proceed against them in accordance with law after giving due
opportunity of hearing to them. Otherwise not. Rest of the findings and
observations made by the learned Writ Court against the officers (appellants
herein) are hereby expunged. Similarly, order regarding cost/compensation is
also set aside. Complainant may pursue civil remedies, if any, after judgment
of trial court, if any cause of action exists for complainant to agitate.
Accordingly, appeals are allowed and disposed of in above manner.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
KUMAR
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b127bc1c16d2794cb53e7637ddf59a1c3b
d3662e8c5de5d5505a6b3e4d77be89,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=32F47BD4EEEC6355252187AFAF37
PHANSE
4C08A4A7DE0DF055620A697876BB20374E54,
cn=SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE
Date: 2025.06.17 11:37:48 +05'30'
