Shiv Pal Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

M.A. Siddiqui, J.—As the controversy involved in the aforesaid two petitions are identical, I have heard both the matters analogously and propose to dispose of both the matters by this common order. These petitions u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary power of this Court to quash the adverse remarks passed against the petitioners by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 282/06 on 16.11.06.

In nut shell the facts of the case are that there was some dispute between Vyanktesh Singh, Hirendra Singh, Rajendra Singh against Mahesh Pratap Singh, Ramesh Pratap Singh and Suresh Pratap Singh relating to agricultural land situated at Village-Supia and Tikar PS-Govindgarh an area of 193.78 acre. Matter was taken to the High Court and the High Court on 7.8.06 in FA No. 624/06 issued notices and status quo was ordered to be maintained. Inspite of order of status quo passed by the High Court, petitioners started proceedings u/s 145 of Cr.P.C., attached the property u/s 146(1) of Cr.P.C. on 2.11.06, against which a revision was preferred by Vyanktesh Singh, Rajendra Singh and Hirendra Singh. While deciding the aforesaid criminal revision no. 282/06 vide order dated 16.11.06, learned 4th ASJ, Rewa passed strictures against the petitioners in para 5, 13 and 14 and also sent a copy of the order to DG (Police), Bhopal and Divisional Commissioner, Rewa for taking appropriate action against the petitioners for misusing the powers. In order to quash these remarks, these petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that the order which was passed by this Court was never communicated to the petitioners and as soon as they came to know the fact of the order of High Court, immediately proceedings were stopped. Moreover no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to explain their position and order dated 16.11.06 passed by learned 4th ASJ, Rewa is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Apex Court in Manish Dixit and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, in which it has been held thus:-

Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). ( The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, . Jage Ram, Inspector of Police and Another Vs. Hans Raj Midha, , R.K. Lakshmanan Vs. A.K. Srinivasan and Another, ; Niranjan Patnaik Vs. Sashibhusan Kar and Another, State of Karnataka Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka,

Reliance has also been placed by the petitioners'' counsel on a decision of single Bench of this Court in Kiran Vs. State of M.P., in which Sessions Judge in his judgment passed adverse remarks against SHO, in the course of trial no opportunity was provided by the trial Court to him to explain his conduct, before passing the judgment no opportunity was provided to him to offer his explanation, remarks which have been passed were also not necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof, because the judgment of acquittal was recorded on some other grounds and not on the basis of delay in sending copy of the FIR to the Magistrate or considering some contradiction between the statement of prosecutrix given in the Court and recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation, it was also the duty on the part of the Court to put specific question to the concerning witness during the course of his examination during trial, so that necessary evidence can be brought on record justifying the remarks, it was held that remarks in the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge are not sustainable and are liable to be expunged. When adverse remarks were made against petitioner-SHO in the judgment of trial Court and directions were also issued to the Director General of Police to hold departmental enquiry and to punish petitioner, it was observed by this Court that trial Court has no jurisdiction to direct the authority for initiation of departmental enquiry, at the most, it could have directed the superior authority to take necessary action in accordance with law, direction to Director General of Police held not sustainable.

Learned PL appearing for State submits that the action of petitioners was in violation of the order passed by High Court and when matter was pending in superior Court, then no proceeding u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. can be initiated, but he concedes that as per record available, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners.

Shri Baderia, by submitting copy of order dated 1.11.07 passed in Criminal Revision No. 381/07 contends that matter has already been decided and order dated 16.11.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 282/06 by 4th ASJ, Rewa has been confirmed by this Court, so these petitions are not maintainable.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit that Criminal Revision 381/07 was filed by private parties i.e. Mahesh Pratap Singh, Ramesh Pratap Singh and Suresh Pratap Singh against the order of learned 4th ASJ dated 16.11.06 and in that revision the issue involved was maintainability of proceeding u/s 145/146 of Cr.P.C. while in these petitions the subject-matter is that of passing of strictures against the petitioners without affording them opportunity of hearing.

So far as action of petitioners relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in Criminal Revision No. 381/07 it has already been held by this Court that action was not justified and learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has committed illegality in passing the order u/s 145/146 of Cr.P.C., but here the issue involved is that of adverse remarks passed against petitioners. As the proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. were dropped by the petitioners immediately after knowledge of order of status quo passed by the High Court in First Appeal, and as no opportunity of being heard has been afforded by learned 4th ASJ, Rewa to petitioners before passing the adverse remarks, so the adverse remarks passed against the petitioners is clear violation of principle of natural justice and such remarks cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently, only the adverse remarks made by learned 4th ASJ, Rewa in order passed in Criminal Revision No. 282/06 on 16.11.06 in para 5, 13 and 14 are hereby expunged. Petitions are disposed of finally.