ORDER 1. Heard finally at motion stage. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 CrPC for quashing the adverse remark passed by the CJM, Morena, in Criminal Case No. 1039/05 vide order dated 16.1.2006. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged at the police station by the complainant that a golden chain was taken away by the accused persons. After investigation, the police found that the case is made out under section 379 of IPC. Finding that the investigation was biased and not conducted properly, therefore, lower Court passed the remark in the impugned order which is as follows: ^^bl izdj.k esa /kkjk 392 Hkk-na-fo- ds rgr ywV dk vijk/k fd;k gS] blfy, /kkjk 11] 13 e-iz- MdSrh ,oa O;igj.k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gS] ;gk¡ Hkh mYys[kuh; gS] fd iqfyl flfoy ykbZu eqjSuk ds fujh{kd vkj-,l- :gy }kjk vafre izfrosnu fn;k x;k gS vkSj vt;iky flag iz/kku vkj{kd ua- 622 Fkkuk flfoy ykbZUl us foospuk dh gS] nksuksa dh gh dk;Ziz.kkyh lansg ds ?ksjs esa gSA blfy, Mh-th-ih- dks vkns’k&if=dk dh izfr Hksth tkos tks mudh lfoZl cqd esa ys[kk dh tk,A** 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the remark was passed by the Court without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. Further, when the remark was passed, charges were not framed against the accused persons. Therefore, before passing the remark, opportunity of hearing or show cause should have been given to the petitioner because adverse remark will affect the entire career of the petitioner. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment rendered by the apex Court in the case of S.K. Viswambaran v. F. Koyakunju and others, reported in [ AIR 1987 SC 1436 ] in which it is held as under: "In the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 5. Counsel for the respondent/State has also been heard. He supported the order passed by the trial Court. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I think before passing the order at least show cause notice should have been given to the petitioner. Further, charges have not yet been framed. Therefore, in the circumstances, the relevant portion of the impugned order which relates to the adverse remark is hereby quashed but it is directed that the trial Court should give notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed. A copy of the this order be sent to the concerning Court for necessary compliance.