##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:13930]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 382/2017

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 the Principal Secretary (Home), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secre-

tariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Commissionerate, Govern-

ment Hostel, M.I. Road Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Yadav, with Mr. Mahendra Yadav, for

Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

02/04/2026

1. By way of filing this petition a limited prayer has been made by the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks made against him vide order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.

56/2017.

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 the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur for taking necessary action against the

petitioner.

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 04:35:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 07:05:17 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13930] (2 of 3) [CRLW-382/2017] 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, (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 State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Kumar Solanki (supra), and this Court in the cases

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 04:35:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 07:05:17 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13930] (3 of 3) [CRLW-382/2017] of Rajveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan(supra) and Raghuveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State (supra), the order impugned dated 28.04.2017, so far as passing stricture remarks against the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside with 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/42

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 04:35:31 PM)

(Downloaded on