The judgment emphasizes the authority of the Station House Officer to seek release of accused under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and the need for restraint in recording non-essential disparaging remarks.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral). - The case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, in criminal case titled as "State Vs. Mukesh and others" arising out of FIR No.736 dated 19.07.2016 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC at Police Station City Karnal, District Karnal.

2. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has however, restricted his prayer only to a limited extent and for seeking expunction of the disparaging remarks recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, in para No.9 (i) & (ii) which read as under:

"After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the entire case file alongwith the police file, this court deems it fit to dismiss the present application and order further investigation on the basis of reasons expounded here as under:

i). It is quite weird that after incarcerating the accused persons for nearly two months and pending investigation the present application has been moved by citing insufficiency of evidence against them. Perhaps the Investigating Officer handling the investigation is unaware about the constitutional right of personal liberty of a person. Be that as it may, the agreement dated 31.10.2014 has categorically incorporated the rights and liabilities of the parties to the instrument vis-a-vis surety/guarantor.

ii) The accused persons are also related to the main accused who have not been apprehended hitherto. Moving of present application especially when other accused persons are evading arrest raises eyebrows as to what prompted the Investigating Officer to move the present application. Moving the present application even before filing of the challan and completing of the investigation is an aberration to the logic. This shows that Investigation is being conducted in a slipshod manner without application of any mind. Had an honest effort to investigate in the right direction been made the DSP would have deliberated about the disclosure statements of the accused persons (now sought to be discharged). (Emphasis Supplied)

The learned Senior counsel has pointed out that his grievance is restricted and limited only to the extent of the observations recorded in para- 9 (i) & (ii) of the order which have been emphasized in the extract reproduced above and does not assail the rest of the order.

ARGUMENTS

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has argued that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer-cum-Station House Officer of the case in question. Some of the suspects namely Ajay Kumar, Subhash Chand and one Raj Kumar were arrested in the above FIR. During the course of investigation, no sufficient evidence was made out on the case file for submission of a challan against the aforesaid persons, hence, an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C., was filed by the petitioner to seek release of the said persons. The relevant provisions under the Cr.P.C., is extracted as under:-

"169. Release of accused when evidence deficient. If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial."

4. It is argued that the aforesaid release application was duly approved by the senior officers of the petitioners. However, while moving the aforesaid application, instead of the word 'release',