Back
ASHISH SHROTI
Sunil Khemaria – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for following relief:
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, the adverse remark made in the judgment Annexure P/1 in Session Case No. 100375/2015 dated 15.7,2022 in para 36 and 59 may kindly be directed to be expunged.
(iii) That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”
2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding the post of Inspector and was posted at Gohad, District Bhind. He was the investigating officer in relation to Crime No.110/2015 registered at the said Police Station for offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 323, 325, 307, 302 read with section 149 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. After investigation, the matter was tried by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Case No.100375 of 2015 and was finally decided vide judgment, dated 15.7.2022 (Annexure P/1). The accused persons were convicted and sentenced vide said judgment.
3. The peti
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
Disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer must meet a triple test of fairness, evidence, and necessity for the case's resolution.
The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process and securing the ends of justice.
Judicial remarks against individuals must comply with principles of natural justice, necessitating notice and an opportunity for a hearing before issuing adverse comments, particularly for officials.
The judgment established the principle of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary should not overstep its jurisdiction by directing disciplinary action against....
Judicial remarks that adversely affect a party's reputation must be made with caution, ensuring the party has an opportunity to defend themselves, and should only be necessary for the adjudication of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
