Uttarakhand High Court
2025:Uhc:5515 vs Unknown on 26 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5515
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482/619/2016
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the
State.
3. This application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the
applicant seeking expungement of certain remarks
made against him in paragraph no.90 to 92 of
common judgment and order dated 16.05.2016,
passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO), District Almora in Sessions Trial No. 10
of 2015, 'State Vs. Sunder Singh & Others', relating
to offences under Sections 307, 324, and 506 IPC.
4. Brief facts of the case as per the records are
that one Smt. Sobha submitted an application to the
Naib Tehsildar alleging cruelty due to dowry demand
by her husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law. On
19.12.2014, while proceeding to the Naib Tehsildar's
office along with her brothers to enquire about the
investigation, she first visited her daughter's school
but did not find her there. She then went to her in-
laws' house to inquire about her daughter, where she
was allegedly attacked by her husband and father-in-
law with an axe and wooden stick. She escaped to
her brothers' house. When her brothers attempted to
rescue her, they too were assaulted with similar
weapons.
5. Based on these allegations, an FIR/Case Crime
No. 02 of 2014 was registered under Sections 324
and 506 IPC. Subsequently, the accused persons
lodged a counter FIR/Case Crime No. 03 of 2014
under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.
During investigation, Section 7 read with Section 8
of 2014, and Section 307 IPC was added in Case
Crime No. 02 of 2014. Pursuant to the letter dated
23.12.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, Revenue
Department, both cases were transferred from
Revenue Police to Regular Civil Police. After
investigation, charge sheets were filed in both cases.
2025:UHC:5515
They were registered as Sessions Trial Nos. 10 of
2015 and 11 of 2015, respectively, and decided by a
common judgment dated 16.05.2016 by the learned
Sessions Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the applicant is serving as a Sub-
Inspector in the Uttarakhand Police Department. The
learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph nos. 90 to 92 of
the judgment dated 16.05.2016, made adverse
observations against the applicant, stating that he had
committed deliberate dereliction of duty while
conducting the investigation and had filed charge
sheets contrary to the evidence on record. In
paragraph 91, the court further noted that the
Investigating Officer had acted in deliberate
violation of duty and, relying on the Supreme Court's
decision in Dayal Singh v. Union of India, directed
the Director General of Police, Government of
Uttarakhand, to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the applicant and punish him with intimation
to the court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that such observations and directions
go beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and
constitute an impermissible interference in the
domain of the disciplinary authority. It is submitted
that such actions amount to judicial overreach and
are wholly unwarranted in law. It is further argued
that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity of
being heard before such castigating remarks and
directions were made, which is in violation of the
principles of natural justice, particularly the principle
of audi alteram partem.
8. In support of his submissions, he placed
reliance the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Balbir Singh, Inspector v. State of NCT of
Delhi and Another [2024 SCC OnLine Del 2133],
where it was held that directions to initiate
disciplinary action without affording an opportunity
of hearing are impermissible and such remarks may
adversely affect the career of a public servant. The
court emphasized judicial restraint and cautioned
against overstepping judicial discretion.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied
upon the judgment passed in the case of State (NCT
2025:UHC:5515
of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Others, (2019)
11 SCC 575, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that disparaging remarks or directions for
disciplinary action affecting the service career of an
individual should not be made without providing
them an opportunity of being heard.
10. Learned State Counsel would vehemently
oppose the application and would submit that the
charge sheet materials suggest that the applicant had
manipulated the investigation and, therefore, the
observations made by the learned Sessions Judge
were justified.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
12. Perusal of the impugned judgment would
reveal that the learned Sessions Judge made serious
observations against the applicant in paragraphs 90
to 92 without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of
judgments has held that such remarks should not be
made without affording the concerned person an
opportunity to defend themselves, especially where
such remarks may adversely impact their service
career. It is further apparent that the observations and
directions made by the trial court in paragraphs 90 to
92 of the judgment dated 16.05.2016 are beyond its
jurisdiction and contrary to settled legal principles.
13. Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate to
expunge paragraphs 90 to 92 of the common
judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), District
Almora in Sessions Trial Nos. 10 and 11 of 2015,
insofar as they pertain to the applicant. Accordingly,
the paragraph nos.90 to 92 of the common judgment
dated 16.05.2016 are hereby expunged.
14. Accordingly, the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
26.06.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:5515
