ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both writ petitions, therefore, they were clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners Pramod Shrivastava and Lakhan Lal Patel both were involved in the investigation for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station City Kotwali Jagdalpur and accused Amrit Lal Paikara was charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar, Jagdalpur in Crime No.498/2013. Accordingly, the trial was conducted in the said Court and ultimately by judgment dated 20.06.2019, the accused Amrit Lal Paikara was acquitted from the aforesaid offences extending benefit of doubt. However, in para 26 of the judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has made certain adverse remarks against both the petitioners, pursuant to which, a joint departmental enquiry vide Annexure P-5 was initiated against them for defective investigation, which is sought to be challenged by way of these writ petitions.

3. Reply has been filed opposing the writ petitions stating that the observations made are strictly in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Anil S. Pandey and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the learned trial Magistrate was not justified in making adverse remarks against the petitioners holding that they were negligent while performing their duties and that too no opportunity of hearing was afforded before making adverse remarks against them. They relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Others, (2019) 11 SCC 575 and submit that adverse remarks against the petitioners in para 42 & 43 of the impugned judgment deserve to be expunged since departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioners vide Annexure P-5.

5. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the petitioners were negligent in performing their duties is a correct finding of fact, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were involved in the investigation of Crime No.498/2013 from time to time and the accused Amrit Lal Paikara was charge-sheeted and the learned Magistrate while acquitting him made comments in para 26 that they were negligent and they have not been vigilant in conducting the investigation. Para 26 is quoted as under :

^^26- ?kVuk fnukad dks vkjksih fdl gSfl;r ls laxzgky; txnyiqj esa inLFk Fkk og laxzgk/;{k Fkk ;k ugha] ;g izekf.kr ugha gSA dysDVj ,oa lhbZvks tuin Qjlxkao ds tkap izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij ts-vkj- Hkxr }kjk tkap dj dysDVj ds funsZ'k ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gS fdarq dysDVj ,oa lhbZvks dh mDr tkap izfrosnu dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk tIr gh ugha fd;k x;k gS] u gh mls U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh xaHkhj ykijokgh gS] ftu 7 etnwjksa ds laca/k esa muds }kjk lkQ lQkbZ djuk O;Dr djrs gq, jkf'k vkgfjr dh x;h gS os 7 etnwj okLrfod vfLrRo esa gS ;k ugha blds laca/k esa lk{; dk furkar vHkko gS rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk rRlaca/k esa Hkh dksbZ tkap ugha dh x;h gSA iapukek iz-izh- 7 ds lk{kh panzgkl ejdke] larq jke ejdke] y{e.k flag nhoku rhuksa us gh bl ckr dh iqf"V ugha fd;k gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 1@02@2012 ls 10@02@2012 ds e/; Hkksxkiky fLFkr cq)nso dh izfrek dh lkQ lQkbZ ugha djk;h x;h FkhA

8. Way back in the year 1964, in the matter of The State U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has held that the High Court can in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a Lower Court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice and obs