IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before making disparaging remarks, quashing directions for disciplinary action against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

“Therefore, it is humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the structures (Strictures-sic)/remarks passed by the learned Court below in Para Nos. 92, 101 & 112 to 116 so also direction to initiate disciplinary inquiry by IG, Police in Para No. 126 of the judgment dated 21.4.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other order or relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 509/2019 registered at Police Station Gangapur City for offence under Section 363 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against accused Harsh Singh Chauhan @ Pawan @ Golu and Sanjay Kumar for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376D IPC and Sections 5/6 and 17/18 of the POCSO Act before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 21.4.2023, acquitted both the accused persons of the charges. However, the learned Trial Court recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner. Vide para No. 126 of the judgment dated 21.4.223, directions were also given to the Inspector General of Police, Range Bharatpurto initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Para No. 126 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse remarks and directions for disciplinary proceedings were recorded without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan & Ors. decided on 31.1.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 1785/2014 relevant observations are being reproduced below:

“11. In Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr., after referring to the authorities in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, Jaga Ram v. Hans Raj Midha, R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, this Court opined thus:

7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did no, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice.

12. At this juncture, it may be clearly stated that singularly on the basis of the aforesaid principle the disparaging remarks and direction, which are going to be referred to hereinafter, deserve to be annulled but we also think it seemly to advert to the facet whether the remarks were really necessary to render the decision by the learned were really necessary to render the decision by the learned Single Judge and the finding recorded by the Division Bench that the observations are based on the material on record and they do not cause any prejudice, are legally sustainable. As far as finding of the Division Bench is concerned that they are based on material brought on record is absolutely unjustified in view of the following principles laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra):

It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Court of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct