JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner being Station House Officer chargesheeted the accused persons therein in Criminal Case No.45/2020 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deobhog, District Gariyaband for offence under Sections 420/34 of the IPC on 06.11.2020. During the course of trial and before framing of the charge, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion on 16.12.2020 that there are some irregularities (18 discrepancies) in seizure of the property in the said offence and directed the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband to take appropriate action against the investigating officer and the matter was directed to be placed on 17.12.2020, on said date, the matter was adjourned for 28.12.2020 and thereafter on 28.12.2020 memo was prepared in which it has been directed to the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband that with regard to the irregularities committed in seizure of the property in connection with said offence, appropriate action be taken against the petitioner being an investigating officer of the said offence within a week, failing which, it will be informed to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur and the Director General of Police, Atal Nagar, Raipur. The aforesaid orders dated 16.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 have been called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition stating interalia that it is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and in addition to, it is violative of principles of natural justice as well as the law laid down in this regard by their Lordships of the Supreme Court from time to time and lastly in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and others, (2019) 11 SCC 575.

2. Mr.Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that learned Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction in prematurely recording a finding that there are irregularities in seizure of the property and further exceeded its jurisdiction in immediately directing for registration of the case against the petitioner as the charges are still to be framed against the accused persons therein and the prosecution has not been given an opportunity to prove its case and further no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the order/stricture against him for recording a finding that there are some irregularities in seizure of the property and for which he is liable for departmental action/criminal action. Therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Chaudhary (supra), the impugned orders dated 16.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 deserve to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned counsel for the respondents/State, would submit that it is judicial order passed by the trial Court and the State has limited role to play in such a matter.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the petitioner being the investigating officer has chargesheeted the accused persons therein for offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC, in which certain discrepancies in seizure of the property were noticed by learned Magistrate in its order dated 16.12.2020 i.e. before the stage of framing of charge and the trial has still to commence and thereafter learned Magistrate immediately on 16.12.2020 directed for appropriate legal action against investigating officer in its order dated 16.12.2020 which states as under:

^^laifRr tIrh esa gqbZ vfu;ferrk ds laca/k esa vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq iqfyl v/kh{kd xfj;kcan dks izsf"kr fd;k tkos^^

Thereafter, on 28.12.2020 in a detailed memo after narrating the entire events and discrepancies, learned Magistrate directed as under:

40@2020 jkT; fo- lq'khy pdzorhZ oxSjg varxZr /kkjk&420 lgifBr /kkjk 34 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] Fkkuk nsoHkksx ds vijk/k dzekad 137@2020 es vUos"k.kdrkZ }kjk laifRr tIrh esa] tIr