Parasmal Panwar S/O Bachanaram vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5695 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:28657]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6358/2023

Parasmal Panwar S/o Bachanaram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o E-
3 Pwd Campus Narayan Nikunj Ke Samne, Civil Line, Ajmer.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Aman Pareek
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

                                      Order

07/10/2023

The petitioner has filed this misc. petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2023 PASSED BY SHRI SATENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, RJS LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.6, KOTA IN CASE No.40/2012 (CIS NO.18120/2014) TITLING STATE VERSUS SANDEEP JAIN AND Ors to the extent whereby learned trial court passed the adverse remarks against the humble Petitioners and directed the Inspector General of Police, Kota and District Magistrate Kota to initiate departmental inquiry may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of Justice; and Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioners."

[2023:RJ-JP:28657] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6358/2023]

The petitioner was the Investigating Officer of FIR

No.05/2011 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota City

for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet

against accused Sandeep Jain and Lokesh Puri for the aforesaid

offences before the learned trial court. Final report under Section

299 Cr.P.C. was also filed against accused Yogesh Jaiswal for

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

During trial, the accused Yogesh Jaiswal was also arrested.

The learned trial court its vide judgment dated 30.06.2023,

acquitted all the accused persons of the charges. However, the

learned trial court recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner

in para nos. 45 & 50 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as

under:-

" 45- ;gk¡ ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izn'kZ&ih-4 tks jktk iq= /kUuk dks vkoafVr gksuk crk;k x;k gS] og Hkw[k.M fdl ;kstuk esa vkoafVr gqvk] ;g Hkh Li"V ugha gSA lkFk gh Hkw[k.M la[;k&77 mls ts-ds- QSDVªh ds lkeus vkoafVr gqvk Fkk tcfd izn'kZ&ih-4 esa ;g dgha of.kZr ugha gS fd jktk iq= /kUuk dks vt; vkgwtk uxj esa Hkw[k.M la[;k&77 vkoafVr gqvk gksA mlds }kjk vkjksX; uxj iquokZl ;kstuk dh jlhn izn'kZ&ih-3 is'k dh xbZ gSA tgk¡ rd mDr nksuksa nLrkostksa dh dwVjpuk djus dk iz'u gS rks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-MCY;w&4 ikjley dks pkfg;s Fkk fd og Hkw[k.M la[;k&77 ds vkoaVh eqjkjhyky ds c;ku ys[kc) djrk o mls lk{; esa ijhf{kr djkrkA lkFk gh bl izdj.k esa vfHk;qDr ;ksxs'k tk;loky ftlds }kjk tfj;s bdjkjukek izn'kZ&ih-5 Hkw[k.M la[;k&77 dks 18]000@&:i;s esa jktk iq= /kUuk ls [kjhnuk crk;k gS] ml jktk iq= /kUuk ls Hkh ih-MCY;w&4 ikjley vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk dksbZ vuqla/kku ugha fd;k x;k gS fd D;k mlus vfHk;qDr ;ksxs'k tk;loky dks mDr Hkw[k.M foØ; fd;k vFkok ugha fd;k lkFk gh ih-MCY;w&9 vkuUnhyky rRdkyhu milfpo] uxj fodkl U;kl] dksVk ftlus crk;k fd fnukad 06-02-2002 dks U;kl esa Jh 'kQh eksgEen dqjs'kh vkj-,-,l- lfpo ds in ij inLFkkfir FksA izn'kZ&ih-3 o izn'kZ&ih-4 ij lfpo ds tks gLrk{kj gSa] mlds laca/k esa

[2023:RJ-JP:28657] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6358/2023]

vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-MCY;w&4 ikjley }kjk rRdkyhu lfpo Jh yfyr xqIrk ls u rks dksbZ vuqla/kku fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh mUgsa lk{; esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;kA tcfd yfyr xqIrk bl izdj.k esa U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj lk{; ns ldrs Fks fd izn'kZ&ih-3 o izn'kZ&ih-4 ij muds gLrk{kj gSa ;k ughaA bl izdj.k esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk ek= izn'kZ&ih-6 yxk;r izn'kZ&ih-8 tks fd ;ksxs'k tk;loky }kjk ifjoknh fot; vxzkor ds i{k esa Hkw[k.M la[;k&77 ds laca/k esa fu"ikfnr bdjkjukek] eq[R;kjukek o olh;rukek ij fd;s x;s gLrk{kj gSa] dh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk ,Q-,l-,y- tk¡p djok;h xbZ gS tcfd mls pkfg;s Fkk fd izn'kZ&ih-3 o izn'kZ&ih-4 dh tk¡p ,Q-,l-,y- }kjk djk;h tkuh pkfg;s Fkh ftlls ;g Li"V gks ldrk Fkk fd ml ij lfpp 'kQh eksgEen dqjs'kh ds QthZ gLrk{kj fd;s x;s gSaA

50- pw¡fd bl izdj.k esa vuqla/kku ih-MCY;w&4 ikjley vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk vius drZO;ksa ds izfr dnkpkj djrs gq, bl izdj.k esa nwf"kr vuqla/kku fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds fo:) tujy :Yl flfoy o fØfeu 2018 ds vkns'k 35 fu;e 06 ds rgr iqfyl egkfujh{kd rFkk ftyk eftLVªsV dks i= fy[kk tkos ,oa mlds lkFk bl fu.kZ; dh izfr Hkh fHktokbZ tkos rFkk ftyk eftLVªsV dksVk o iqfyl egkfujh{kd dksVk ls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds fo:) dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls U;k;ky; dks voxr djkosA "

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse

remarks and directions for disciplinary proceedings were recorded

without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash Chautala vs.

Kanwar Bhan and Others decided on 31 st January, 2014 in Civil

Appeal No. 1785/2014 relevant observations are being reproduced

below:-

"11. In Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and another v. State of Assam and another [4], after referring to the authorities in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim [5], Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha [6], R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan [7] and

[2023:RJ-JP:28657] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6358/2023]

Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar [8], this Court opined thus:-

7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice.

12. At this juncture, it may be clearly stated that singularly on the basis of the aforesaid principle the disparaging remarks and directions, which are going to be referred to hereinafter, deserve to be annulled but we also think it seemly to advert to the facet whether the remarks were really necessary to render the decision by the learned single Judge and the finding recorded by the Division Bench that the observations are based on the material on record and they do not cause any prejudice, are legally sustainable. As far as finding of the Division Bench is concerned that they are based on materials brought on record is absolutely unjustified in view of the following principles laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra):-

It has been judicially recognized 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.

[2023:RJ-JP:28657] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6358/2023]

13. On a perusal of the order we find that two aspects are clear, namely, (I) that the appellant was not before the court, and (ii) by no stretch of logic the observations and the directions were required to decide the lis. We are disposed to think so as we find that the learned single Judge has opined that the order of suspension was unjustified and that is why it was revoked. He has also ruled that there has been arbitrary exercise of power which was amenable to judicial review and, more so, when the charges were dropped against the employee. Commenting on the second charge- sheet dated 15.3.2004 the learned single Judge, referring to the decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan [9], State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal [10], The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another [11] and P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D.T.N. Housing Board [12], thought it appropriate to quash the same on the ground of delay. The conclusion could have been arrived at without making series of comments on the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was the Chief Minister of the State."

Considering the settled principle that opportunity of hearing

must be given to the persons aggrieved by disparaging remarks

before recording it and the court below has not given any

opportunity of hearing, hence, the aforesaid portion of the

impugned judgment dated 30.06.2023 stands hereby quashed and

the same be not treated as on the record of the petitioner nor the

same shall be considered against the petitioner in future.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application, if any,

stands disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

/Sudhir Asopa

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)