Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 455 (MP)

Shiv Pal Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-04-04

M.A.Siddiqui

body2013
ORDER 1. 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. 2. These petitions under section 482 of CrPC has been filed in order to invoke the extraordinary 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 16.11.2006. 3. In nutshell 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 7.8.2006 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 under section 145 of CrPC, attached the property under section 146(1) of CrPC on 2.11.2006, 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 16.11.2006, learned 4th ASJ, Rewa passed strictures against the petitioners in para 5,13 and 14 and also sent a copy of 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 under section 482 CrPC have been filed by petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. 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 16.11.2006 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 v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 93 in which it has been held thus :- “43. Reliance has been placed on a decision of apex Court in Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 93 in which it has been held thus :- “43. 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). (State of UP v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 : ( AIR 1964 SC 703 : 1964 (1) Cri Lj 549). Ch. Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha, (1972) 1 SCC 181 : ( AIR 1972 SC 1140 : 1972 Cri LJ 768), RK Lakshmanan v. AK Srinivasan, (1975) 2 SCC 466 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1741 : 1975 Cri LJ 1545) ; Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569 : ( AIR 1986 SC 819 : 1986 Cri LJ 911); State of Karnataka v. Registrar General, 2000 (5) Scale 504 : (2000 AIR SCW 2794 : AIR 2000 SC 2626 ).” 6. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioners’ counsel on a decision of single Bench of this Court in Kiran s/o Shankar Rao Lashkarkar v. State of MP 2007 (2) MPLJ 132 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 under section 161 CrPC 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. 7. 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 under section 145/146 CrPC can be initiated, but he concedes that as per record availabe, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners. 8. Shri Baderia, by submitting copy of order dated 1.11.2007 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. 9. 8. Shri Baderia, by submitting copy of order dated 1.11.2007 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. 9. 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 16.11.2006 and in that revision the issue involved was maintainability of proceeding under section 145/146 of CrPC while in these petitions the subject-matter is that of passing of strictures against the petitioners without affording them opportunity of hearing. 10. So far as action of petitioners relating to initiation of proceedings under section 145/146 CrPC 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 under section 145/146 of CrPC, but here the issue involved is that of adverse remarks passed against petitioners. As the proceedings under section 145/146 CrPC 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 16.11.2006 in para 5,13 and 14 are hereby expunged. 11. Petitions are disposed of finally.