JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner being Station House Officer chargesheeted the accused persons therein in Criminal Case No.45/2020 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deobhog, District Gariyaband for offence under Sections 420/34 of the IPC on 06.11.2020. During the course of trial and before framing of the charge, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion on 16.12.2020 that there are some irregularities (18 discrepancies) in seizure of the property in the said offence and directed the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband to take appropriate action against the investigating officer and the matter was directed to be placed on 17.12.2020, on said date, the matter was adjourned for 28.12.2020 and thereafter on 28.12.2020 memo was prepared in which it has been directed to the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband that with regard to the irregularities committed in seizure of the property in connection with said offence, appropriate action be taken against the petitioner being an investigating officer of the said offence within a week, failing which, it will be informed to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur and the Director General of Police, Atal Nagar, Raipur. The aforesaid orders dated 16.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 have been called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition stating interalia that it is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and in addition to, it is violative of principles of natural justice as well as the law laid down in this regard by their Lordships of the Supreme Court from time to time and lastly in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and others, (2019) 11 SCC 575 . 2. Mr.Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that learned Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction in prematurely recording a finding that there are irregularities in seizure of the property and further exceeded its jurisdiction in immediately directing for registration of the case against the petitioner as the charges are still to be framed against the accused persons therein and the prosecution has not been given an opportunity to prove its case and further no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the order/stricture against him for recording a finding that there are some irregularities in seizure of the property and for which he is liable for departmental action/criminal action. Therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Chaudhary (supra), the impugned orders dated 16.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 deserve to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned counsel for the respondents/State, would submit that it is judicial order passed by the trial Court and the State has limited role to play in such a matter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the petitioner being the investigating officer has chargesheeted the accused persons therein for offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC, in which certain discrepancies in seizure of the property were noticed by learned Magistrate in its order dated 16.12.2020 i.e. before the stage of framing of charge and the trial has still to commence and thereafter learned Magistrate immediately on 16.12.2020 directed for appropriate legal action against investigating officer in its order dated 16.12.2020 which states as under: ^^laifRr tIrh esa gqbZ vfu;ferrk ds laca/k esa vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq iqfyl v/kh{kd xfj;kcan dks izsf"kr fd;k tkos^^ Thereafter, on 28.12.2020 in a detailed memo after narrating the entire events and discrepancies, learned Magistrate directed as under: 40@2020 jkT; fo- lq'khy pdzorhZ oxSjg varxZr /kkjk&420 lgifBr /kkjk 34 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] Fkkuk nsoHkksx ds vijk/k dzekad 137@2020 es vUos"k.kdrkZ }kjk laifRr tIrh esa] tIrh dh dk;Zokgh esa vfu;ferrk dh xbZ gSA vr% izdj.k esa vUos"k.kdrkZ ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh dj] rRdky ekeyk iathc) fd;k tkosa ,oa vkids }kjk lacaf/kr vUos"k.kdrkZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh xbZ gS ;k ugha ds laca/k esa ,d lIrkg ds vanj bl U;k;ky; dks izfrosnu izLrqr djsaA ;fn vkidh vksj ls dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esa izfrosnu U;k;ky; dks izkIr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkids mPPk vf/kdkjh iqfyl egkfujh{kd jk;iqj jast jk;iqj ,oa iqfyl egkfuns'kd vVy uxj jk;iqj dks] vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Kkiu izsf"kr dh tkosxhA layXu%& vfHk;ksx i= ds nLrkostksa esa vUos"k.kdrkZ }kjk dh xbZ =qfV ds laca/k esa dqN nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA lgh@& 28@12@2020 ¼dq- f[kys'ojh flUgk½ U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] nsoHkksx] ftyk xfj;kcan ¼N-x-½ 6. Upon perusal of the record, the following facts are absolutely clear: (i) That, at present the trial has not commenced. Even the charges have not been framed. Upon perusal of the record, the following facts are absolutely clear: (i) That, at present the trial has not commenced. Even the charges have not been framed. (ii) That, the prosecution has yet to prove the charges alleged in the shape of chargesheet which they have filed before the trial Court. (iii) While forming a prima facie opinion that irregularities have been committed in seizure of the property, the investigating officer has not been heard and even before passing of that adverse order against the petitioner, he has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing by learned trial Magistrate. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pankaj Chaudhary (supra) has clearly held that in case of defective/illegal investigation disparaging remarks/direction to initiate prosecution should not be passed against the police officials without affording them opportunity of hearing. It was held as under: “42. While passing disparaging remarks against the police officials and directing prosecution against them, in our considered view, the High Court has failed to bear in mind the well settled principles of law that should govern the courts before making disparaging remarks. Any disparaging remarks and direction to initiate departmental action/prosecution against the persons whose conduct comes into consideration before the court would have serious impact in their official career. 45. Since the High Court has passed strictures against the police officials who were involved in the investigation in FIR No.559 of 1997 without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the disparaging remarks are liable to be set aside.” 8. As such, the order passed by learned Magistrate is absolutely contrary to the well settled principle of law in this regard. The trial Magistrate ought to have given an opportunity to the investigating officer/State to prove its case and could have waited for trial to conclude and could not have prematurely even without affording an opportunity of hearing directed that action should be taken against the investigating officer. The terror and texture of the order of learned Magistrate would show that even it has been directed that if action taken is not reported within a week, the Court will be constrained to inform to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur and Director General of Police, Atal Nagar, Raipour. Such a direction is absolutely unwarranted. 9. The terror and texture of the order of learned Magistrate would show that even it has been directed that if action taken is not reported within a week, the Court will be constrained to inform to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur and Director General of Police, Atal Nagar, Raipour. Such a direction is absolutely unwarranted. 9. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deobhog in Criminal Case No.45/2020 directing action against the petitioner as well as the memo dated 28.12.2020 are hereby quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).