The importance of giving an Investigating Officer an opportunity to explain his conduct and the need for strict relevance of remarks censuring the action of police officers.

ORDER

1. This is a petition seeking setting aside/modifying the judgment dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned ASJ-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and further to expunge the remarks made against the petitioner and to set aside the direction of initiating inquiry against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner in the present case is the Investigating Officer who had conducted investigation in FIR No. 428/2011, Police Station - New Usmanpur, under Section 302 IPC. The learned ASJ in his order dated 25.10.2021 set aside the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and while doing so, the learned ASJ in para 17 of the order observed as under:

"17. Before parting with this revision petition, it is necessary to notice the conduct of IO, Inspector Surender Kumar, Crime Branch, Delhi. IO was well aware about the status of the case which had already been committed to this court and also used to attend the proceedings before this court. Even he was well aware about the factum that application of accused u/s 307 Cr.P.C had already been dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 03/09/2019, but instead of getting challenged the dismissal order before the Higher Court, he assisted and connived with accused to invoke the wrong jurisdiction of the Court of Ld. CMM/MM by not disclosing the correct facts and compelled to invoke the jurisdiction which was not vested with them and procured the desired order through Forum-Shopping. He did everything deliberately and his conduct amounts to Contempt of Court besides dereliction in his official duties. This deliberate misconduct of IO, Inspector Surender Kumar, Crime Branch, Delhi is liable to be brought into the notice of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, who shall initiate a time bound inquiry against this IO, Insp. Surender Kumar and shall file an Action Taken Report within the period of 8 weeks positively. "

3. It is stated by the petitioner that the observations of the learned Sessions Court is not only contrary to law but also have been passed behind his back and without giving him any opportunity of explaining his conduct and the steps undertaken in the inquiry.

4. Mr Kundu, learned ASC appearing for the State fairly submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his conduct or investigation undertaken before adverse comments have been made against him.

5. Mr Sehrawat learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order of the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No (s). 1092/2002 dated 18.06.2008 which reads as under:

"We feel that the direction given for initiation of the Departmental Proceedings and other directions should not have been given in the judgment.

All that the Court could have done if it felt that there was lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, to record this fact.

But going further and directing that the Departmental Proceedings should be initiated and further findings which virtually finds him guilty are certainly not the permissible course.

The appeal is allowed to that extent. We direct deletion of the directions given by the trial court as upheld by the High Court."

6. He has also relied on Mohd. Mehandi Shah v. State, CRL.M.C. 2802/2021 of the Delhi High Court dated 11.11.2021 and more particularly on para 4 to 9 contained therein which is reproduced below:

"4. In the instant case, the Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order has made observations with regard to the conduct of investigating officer and lapses in the investigation.

5. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to peruse the position of law laid down in this context.

6. Section 6 in Chapter 1, part H (titled The Judgment') of the Delhi High Court Rules for "Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases" states as follows:-

"6. Criticism on the conduct of Police and other officersIt is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censurin