[2026:RJ-JP:14229]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 383/2017 Suresh Chand S/o Shri Jagram, aged about 43 years, R/o Plot No. 27, Hanuman Nagar-A, Green Park, Dadi Ka Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur Raj. Presently, Circle Inspector, Jaipur Commissioner (North) Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Commissionerate, Government Hostel, M.I. Road Jaipur Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Yadav for Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

06/04/2026

1. By way of filing the instant petition a limited prayer has been made by the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks made against him vide order dated 04.02.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision No. 30/2017.

2. Counsel submits that after passing the adverse remarks against the petitioner, a copy of the aforesaid order has been sent by the Court below to the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur for taking necessary action against the petitioner.

3. Counsel further submits that the aforesaid order has been passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order, against any person, at least one opportunity is required to be given to him to present his side/case. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Kumar Solanki, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 414 as also the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Rajveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005(2) RCC 552 and in the case of Raghuveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State, 2006(1)

Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 284.

4. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned.

5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments, it is well settled that before any remarks are made by the Court, against any person, particularly when such remarks could cause serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures and such an opportunity is the basic requirement of law.

6. Therefore, in view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Solanki (supra), and this Court in the cases of Rajveer Singh (supra) and Raghuveer Singh (supra), the order impugned dated 04.02.2017, so far as passing stricture remarks against the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside with the direction that before passing stricture remarks against the petitioner, the Court below shall provide him an opportunity of being heard and then pass fresh order in this regard.

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan for passing appropriate orders afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Puneet-Shivam/49