IMPORTANT POINT
Disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer must meet a triple test of fairness, evidence, and necessity for the case's resolution.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(A) By issuing an appropriate order, or direction to quash the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Baran in Case No. 323/2021 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Jitendra and Others only to the extent of adverse remarks passed against the petitioner by expunging the same, after declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. (Annexure-3)

(B) By issuing an appropriate order, or direction, direct the Respondents to not to initiate any departmental inquiry on the basis of adverse remarks and if already ordered then same may be dropped.

(C) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be passed in favor of the Petitioner.”

2. In a nutshell, the factual narrative of the instant matter is that the present petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 19.03.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 323/2021 to the extent of paragraph nos. 9 and 11, wherein, the learned Trial Court had passed deleterious remarks, and had ordered respondent no. 2 to initiate appropriate inquiry qua the petitioner herein, who was the Investigating Officer in the dispute before the learned Trial Court.

3. In this backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on 25.05.2021 an F.I.R. numbered as 114/2021 was made to be registered at the behest of Shri Ramchandra at Police Station, Sadar Baran, District Baran, for offences under Section 447 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was posted as ‘Assistant Sub-Inspector’ in the said Police Station, and was appointed as the Investigating Officer for the said dispute. Subsequently, on 19.06.2021, the charge sheet qua the instant matter was submitted by the petitioner, before the learned Trial Court.

4. It is further submitted that the said dispute was only on account of the feud between the two brothers. Vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused therein, on account of benefit of doubt. Withal, the learned Trial Court whilst exercising it jurisdiction under the General (Criminal) Rules, 1980 passed deleterious remarks qua the petitioner and also ordered for initiating appropriate inquiry.

5. In this regard, learned counsel had submitted that the learned Trial Court - Magistrate had failed to follow the requisite mandate, categorically stated in the ratio passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703. It was further submitted that in order to pass disparaging remarks against persons/authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the Court, in order to consider the said act, it is relevant to consider the following aspects:

5.1 That whether party whose conduct is in question, is before the Court and a reasonable opportunity to explain himself is tendered to him.

5.2 That whether sufficient evidence is placed on record, to justify the said remarks.

5.3 That whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.

6. Additionally, learned counsel had also placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Sumit Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (1) RLW 733 (Raj.) and has submitted that the aforementioned mandates were not followed in the case of the petitioner.

7. Lastly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had averred that once an observation of the Court on a judicial order is passed the same can only be expunged by the Constitutional Court either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the same may have detrimental effect upon the promotions, transfers and retirement benefits of a person/authority.

8. E-converso, learned counsel representing the State had vehemently opposed the instant petition and contended that the said observations/remarks were only made on account of th