Ramgopal Sharma And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6352 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1963/2012

1. Ramgopal Sharma S/o Shri Hari Kishan, aged 50 Years,
Resident of House No.62, Patrakar Colony, Jaipur.
2. Anil Rao S/o Shri Ram Singh Yadav, aged 46 Years, Resident
of House NO.24, Vishnu Enclave, JLN Marg, Jaipur
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metro,
through its Presiding Officer
2. State Of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Anil Kumar Upman, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 21.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 23.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated

23.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby issued

adverse remarks against the petitioners and issued direction to

Director General for taking action against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while

acquitting the accused Shivraj Sharma from all the charges

against him, learned trial court vide order dated 23.05.2012

issued adverse remarks against the present petitioners that they

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1963/2012]

did not conduct the fair investigation and matter was referred to

the Director General of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur for taking proper

action against the petitioners within two months and informed the

court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that before

passing the adverse remarks, no opportunity of hearing was given

to the petitioners. Without giving the opportunity, order of learned

trial court is not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the judgment of this Court in Anand Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)

No.3063/2022 decided on 25.07.2022.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted

that petitioners had not conducted the investigation properly, so,

accused was acquitted by the trial court. So, present petition,

being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that while issuing the adverse

remarks against the petitioners, learned trial court had not heard

them. So, it is violation of the natural justice. Before passing any

adverse remarks against person, opportunity of hearing must be

given. In the present case, learned court below had not given any

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the

adverse remarks against them. So, in my considered opinion,

order of learned trial court regarding adverse remarks against the

petitioners is not sustainable. So, present petition deserves to be

allowed.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1963/2012]

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners is

allowed. The order against the petitioners regarding adverse

remarks and disciplinary action is hereby quashed.

Pending application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /68

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)