Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kapoora Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23763) on 24 May, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:23763] (1 of 4) [CRLMP-3286/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3286/2021
Kapoora Ram S/o Sh. Duda Ram, Aged About 40 Years, resident
of Plot No. 40, Vastu Nagar, Kuri Bhagtasani, Jodhpur, Dist.
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
24/05/2024
1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred by the petitioner against the adverse remarks
made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in para
No.10 of order dated 02.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.20/2021 (Dharma Ram vs. State of Rajasthan)
whereby, though the application preferred by the accused Dharma
Ram under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.24/2021
registered at Police Station Sam, District Jasialmer for the offences
under Sections 147, 341, 279, 336, 307 and 149 IPC, has been
rejected, however, the learned trial court, while deciding the bail
application of the said accused, has made certain adverse remarks
against the working of the petitioner who was posted as the SHO
of the police station concerned at the relevant time.
[2024:RJ-JD:23763] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3286/2021]
2. The impugned adverse remarks are being reproduced herein
below for ready reference:
"izdj.k esa vHkh et:c ds dFku Hkh Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk ys[kc) ugha fd;s
x;s gS tcfd fnukad 28-06-2021 dks mls gks"k esa vkus ds rF; vfHkys[k
ij vk pqds gS] ckotwn blds Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk ,ssls xaHkhj izdj.k esa
ykijokgh cjrrs gq, vHkh rd pkj fnu xqtjus ds ckn Hkh c;ku ugha
fy, x, tcfd bl izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k ds fy, et:c ds c;ku ,oa
mldh orZeku fLFkfr vfHkys[k ij vkuk vko";d FkkA okLro esa et:c
vkt Hkh vLirky@vkbZ-lh-;w- esa HkrhZ gS ,oa mldh fLFkfr xaHkhj gS] ;g
rF; Fkkukf/kdkjh us fdlh Hkh :i esa vuql/a kku i=koyh ij ugha fy, gS
dsoy viuh vksj ls dsl Mk;jh drk dh gS ,oa rF;kRed fjiksVZ esa
vafdr fd;k gS] tcfd bl laca/k esa lacaf/kr vLirky ds fpfdRld
bR;kfn ls iwNrkN dj c;ku ys[kc) fd;s tkus pkfg, Fks lkFk gh
vLirky esa HkrhZ gksus ds lac/a k esa nLrkostkr] mlds bZykt ds nLrkostkr
Hkh izkIr fd;s tkus pkfg, Fks rFkk mlds HkrhZ gksus ds lac/a k esa QksVksxzkQ~l
Hkh vfHkys[k ij ykus pkfg, FksA Fkkukf/kdkjh dk ,sls xaHkhj izdj.k esa bl
rjg dk vuqla/kku ?kksj ykijokgh n"kkZrk gS tks fd vuql/a kku ,tsUlh ds
vuql/a kku ds izfr iz"ufpUg yxkrk gSA"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a
settled principle of law that before making any castigating remarks
against any person, which have serious consequences upon the
future career of the person concerned, an opportunity of hearing
must be extended to such person.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court delivered in the case of Manish Dixit & Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan reported in (2001)1 SCC 596 wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that before any castigating
remarks are made against any person particularly when such
remarks could entail serious consequences on the future career
prospects of the person concerned, he should be given an
opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the
proposed remarks or structures. If such an opportunity is not
[2024:RJ-JD:23763] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3286/2021]
given, then the remarks would be in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned remarks made against the petitioner
in the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer may be expunged.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on
behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned trial court,
after going through the record of the case, has rightly made the
impugned remarks against the petitioner and therefore, the same
does not deserve any interference by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the impugned remarks made in the order
dated 02.07.2021.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and after perusing the impugned
remarks made in the order dated 02.07.2021, this Court prima
facie finds that at the time when the impugned remarks were
made against the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jaisalmer, the petitioner was not present before the Court.
This Court also finds that no opportunity was given to the
petitioner to explain the reasons for not recording the statements
of the injured. This Court also prima facie finds that the impugned
adverse remarks have been made against the petitioner without
[2024:RJ-JD:23763] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3286/2021]
extending an opportunity of hearing or following the principle of
audi alteram partem.
7. In view of the discussion made herein above, the present
misc. petition is allowed. The observations/remarks made against
the present petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jaisalmer in para No.10 of the order dated 02.07.2021 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.20/2021 (Dharma Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan), are hereby expunged.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
276-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
