Allowed

Vijay Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Mar 2021WPCR/75/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging adverse remarks in an acquittal judgment. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer made without an opportunity of hearing violate natural justice. The remarks and the consequent departmental proceeding were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The disparaging remarks in the impugned judgment were expunged and the consequent departmental proceeding directed by the Session Judge was quashed.

Vijay Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 75 of 2021

¶5

Order reserved on 04/03/2021

¶6

Order delivered on 08/03/2021

¶7

Vijay Patel S/o Late Shri Khushiram Patel, Aged
about 43 years, Posted as Station House Officer,
Police Station Pushpal, District Sukma,
Chhattisgarh.

¶8

 ---Petitioner

¶9

 Versus

¶10

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Near Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3. Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4. Superintendent of Police, Sukma, Distt. Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

 --- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner :-Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
For State :-Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

C.A.V. Order

¶18

1. Petitioner, being an Investigating Officer, investigated the offence under Section 376 of

¶19

¶20

IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of

¶21

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
registered against the accused which was the
subject matter of Special Session Trial No.
10/2019 wherein by impugned judgment dated
20/10/2020, the accused has been acquitted from
the aforesaid charges, but while recording the
conclusion, learned Session Judge has also
recorded in paragraph 18 that on account of the
ineffective and negligent conduct of the
petitioner in performing his duty of conducting
the investigation of aforesaid offence, the
guilt of the accused could not be established
and accordingly, relied upon the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of
State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai1 and directed the

¶22

Director General of Police to initiate
appropriate action against the petitioner for
the negligent investigation conducted by him.

¶23

2.Calling in question the legality, validity and
correctness of the impugned judgment passed by
learned Session Judge directing appropriate
action to be taken against the petitioner for
his negligent conduct, he has preferred this
writ petition particularly on the ground that

¶24

1 2014 SCC Online SC 21

¶25

¶26

learned Session Judge could not have made any
observation about his official conduct without
affording him an opportunity of hearing before
directing appropriate action to be taken against

¶27

him for his negligent action in the
investigation conducted by him as it is
violative of principles of natural justice as
laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of
decisions from time to time including in the
matter of State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v.
Pankaj Chaudhary2.

¶28

3.Return has been filed by the State opposing the
averment made in this writ petition and
justifying the initiation of action against the
petitioner for the negligent performance of his
duty.

¶29

4.Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for
the petitioner, would submit that learned
Session Judge is absolutely unjustified in
making adverse remarks about the petitioner
holding that petitioner has been negligent while
performing his duty by making a defective
investigation, that too, without affording him

¶30

an opportunity of hearing before making such adverse remarks about him. He would rely upon 2 2019 (11) SCC 575

¶31

¶32

the decision of the Supreme Court in Pankaj
Chaudhary(supra) and submit that the adverse
remarks made about the petitioner in paragraphs
16 and 18 of the impugned judgment passed by
learned Session Judge deserves to be expunged.

¶33

5.Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate
General, would submit that the finding recorded
by learned Session Judge that petitioner was
negligentin performing hisdutyof

¶34

investigating the offence in a right manner is a
correct finding and it has rightly been directed
that appropriate action be taken against him
which is strictly in accordance with law and no
relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶35

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions put forth and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

¶36

7. It is not in dispute that on 02/06/2019, FIR was registered against the accused person under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POSCO Act in

¶37

Police Station Tongpal, Distt. Sukma by the
petitioner and said offences were investigated
and accused persons were charge-sheeted by the
petitioner and on conclusion of trial, the
accused person was acquitted by extending

¶38

¶39

benefit of doubt, however, learned Session Judge
passed adverse remarks against the petitioner in
paragraphs 16 to 18 of the impugned judgment of
acquittal dated 20/01/2020 holding that
petitioner did not conduct proper investigation
and it was a defective investigation which was
conducted by him on account of which the accused
was acquitted. The said remarks made by learned
Session Judge have been sought to be challenged
by the petitioner on the ground that the remarks
made against him are completely disparaging and
undeserving, and that too, without affording
minimum opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
before passing of such adverse remarks which is
absolutely in violation of principles of natural
justice.

¶40

8. In the matter of Pankaj Chaudhary (supra) also, the accused was convicted for offence under

¶41

Section 376(2)(g) of IPC by the trial Court
whereas the High Court, while acquitting the
accused, made certain disparaging remarks about

¶42

the Investigating Officer and the matter was
challenged by the said Officer before the
Supreme Court wherein their Lordships of the
Supreme Court, further taking note of the

¶43

¶44

decisions rendered in the matters of State of
U.P. v. Mohd. Naim3,S.K. Viswambaran v. E.
Koyakunju4,Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan5,
R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan6,Niranjan
Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar7,Jage Ram v. Hans
Raj Midha8 and State of Karnataka v. High Court
of Karnataka9 clearly held that since the
strictures were passed by the High Court without
affording an opportunity of hearing, the
disparaging remarks could not have been made and
it was set aside by holding in paragraphs 42 and

¶45

45 as under :-

¶46

“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 on their
official career.

¶47

45. Since the High Court has passed
strictures against the police officials who
were involved in the investigation of FIR No.
559 of 1997 without affording an opportunity
of hearing to them, the disparaging remarks
are liable to be set aside.”

¶48

3 AIR 1964 SC 703

¶49

4 (1987) 2 SCC 109

¶50

5 (2001) 1 SCC 596

¶51

6 (1975) 2 SCC 466

¶52

7 (1986) 2 SCC 569

¶53

8 (1972) 1 SCC 181

¶54

9 (2000) 7 SCC 333

¶55

¶56

9.Reverting to the facts of the present case,
learned Session Judge, while acquitting the
accused therein found the petitioner guilty of
defective/illegalinvestigationandmade

¶57

disparaging remarks/direction to initiate
appropriate action against him for the negligent
investigation conducted by him without affording
an opportunity of hearing to him. As such, the
principle of law laid down by their Lordships of

¶58

the Supreme Court in Pankaj Choudhary(supra)
squarely applies to the facts of the present
case and the disparaging and undeserving remarks
made by learned Session Judge against the
petitioner is in teeth of the judgment of Pankaj
Choudhary(supra) and it is liable to be
expunged. However, the objection of learned
State counsel that in the matter of Kishanbhai
(supra) the Supreme Court has issued certain
directions to the Home Department of all the
States with regard to orders of acquittal, but

¶59

the fact remains that in the instant case,
disparaging and undeserving remarks have been
made by learned Session Judge against the
petitioner, that too, without affording him an
opportunity of hearing despite several
pronouncements and directions issued by their

¶60

Lordships of the Supreme Court including Pankaj
Choudhary(supra). As such, the disparaging and
undeserving remarks made by learned Session
Judge against the petitioner in paragraphs 16 to
18 of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
20/01/2020 are hereby expunged and the
consequential proceeding initiated against the
petitioner by the A.S.P. on 12/10/2020 (Annexure
P/8) pursuant to the impugned judgment is also
quashed. However, State is at liberty to proceed
in accordance with law.

¶61

10.Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands

¶62

allowed. No cost(s).

¶63

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶64

Harneet

Vijay Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Insecticide India Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudesh Kumar Nand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Patiram Vs Faguwa and Ors.

Jamidar and Ors. Vs Jamuni Bai and Anr.

Rameshwar Prasad Vs Lahri Ram and Another