Jitendra Kumar Meena v. State of NCT of Delhi

10. He submits that though it cannot be disputed that the statutory provisions as well as the directions given by this Court in Rajesh Tyagi (Supra) have to be complied with in letter and spirit, but at times, the Investigating Officer (‘IO’, for short) is not able to adhere to the timelines in filing the DARs in some of the cases, inter-alia, for the following reasons: - Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to be submitted by the Invest igating Officer before the Claims Tribunal within 90 days The Investigating Officer shall complete the verification of the information and documents furnished by the driver and owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident and submit the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) with the Claims Tribunal in Form-VII within 90 days of the accident. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) shall be accompanied with the documents mentioned in Form-VII including the Site Plan in Form-VIII, Mechanical Inspection Report in Form- IX and Verification Report in Form-X. i. In the cases of hit and run, lot of efforts are required to trace the offending vehicle, driver, search of eyewitness, analysis of CCTV footage. In such hit and run cases, at times it is difficult to trace the offending vehicle and to file DAR within stipulated period despite all possible efforts; ii. In some cases, the victim remains unidentified. Time consuming efforts are required in order to establish the identity of victim, such as report from CRO qua matching of fingerprints from data base, publication in the newspaper, W.T. Message, Hue and Cry notice etc.; iii. The form containing information about all the drivers involved in the accident (either of the offending vehicles or victim/ injured vehicles) regarding name, age, gender, income, driving license, period of validity of license, vehicle registration number, particular of owner and insurance of vehicle is to be submitted by the driver to the IO within 30 days but, at times, the same is not provided by the concerned driver to the IO within the stipulated time, which leads to delay; iv. The form containing information about the owner(s) of all the vehicles involved in the accident (either of the offending vehicles or victim/ injured’s vehicles), viz., particulars of the owners, driver details, particulars of insurance policy, particulars of permit and fitness in case of commercial vehicle, RC along with the requisite documents is to be submitted by the concerned owner to the IO within 30 days. Generally, complete information is not received in time. Further, after receipt of this information, the same is to be verified by the IO from various stake holders; v. The victims of accident have to furnish the relevant information regarding their income, family details, profession, treatment papers along with the bills of expenditure incurred on treatment to the IO within sixty days. Most of the time, the victims and/or their families are not able to provide timely details as sometimes the medical documents are lost by the victims or the collection of same from the concerned medical institution also takes time. Even after receipt of the information and related documents, the same have to be further verified by the IO; and vi. Many times, it takes time to get the abovementioned information verified from various agencies since such agencies are located in different State(s)/City i.e. areas out of Delhi, which also leads to delay.

11. Mr. Sanjay Lao, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the State has no objection in case remarks against the petitioner are expunged.

12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the State.

13. Before proceeding to deal with the question whether the remarks and observations made by the learned MACT-01, North, Rohini Court, Delhi are required to be expunged or not, it is imperative to consider the law on the aspect of expunction of disparaging remarks against the person or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law during the proceedings of a case.

14. In Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of making disparaging remarks against the person or authorities who are not parties to the lis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted the test laid down in its earlier decision in State of U.P vs. Mohd. Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703, that is to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks. The relevant part of the decision reads thus:

appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice.

8. Judged in the context of the first test laid down in Mohd. Naim case [AIR 1964 SC 703: (1964) 1 Cri LJ 549: (1964) 2 SCR 363] the above discussion of ours is sufficient to quash the impugned remarks, but we find that the remarks are vulnerable also to the second test laid down therein. On perusal of the order dismissing the revision petition we find that the remarks of the learned Judge are based solely upon the fact that the report of the Medical Board consisting of four medical experts belied their report. Indeed, except the report of the Board we have also not found any other material on record from which the learned Judge could have legitimately and justifiably obtained satisfaction to pass the above remarks against the two appellants before us. We hasten to add that in making the above observation we have left out of our consideration the materials which prompted the learned Judge to make adverse comments against the IO. (emphasis supplied)

15. In Palani Velayutham (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the following instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had deprecated certain authoritarian practices which resulted in hardship and prejudice to litigants and even non-parties in the following terms:

a party) by holding him personally liable for some alleged act or omission, without giving him any opportunity to explain his position, conduct or action; (3) directing prosecution of parties and/or non-parties, in cases which merely warrant levy of costs or admonition.”

16. In Mir Mohammad Omar (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the castigation of investigation seems to be a regular practice when the trial courts acquit accused in criminal cases on account of flaws and defects in investigation. It was observed that deprecatory remarks be made only when it is absolutely necessary in a particular case and the Court should not overlook the facts that usually such an officer is not heard in respect of such remarks made against them. The relevant observation reads thus: -

conducting investigation in almost every case. Before an investigating officer is imputed with castigating remarks the courts should not overlook the fact that usually such an officer is not heard in respect of such remarks made against them. In our view the court need make such deprecatory remarks only when it is absolutely necessary in a particular case, and that too by keeping in mind the broad realities indicated above.”

17. It is also advantageous to refer to some of the decisions of the coordinate benches of this Court on the question at hand. In Ajit Kumar (supra) this Court whilst dealing with a similar issue wherein SHO concerned had moved before the Court seeking deletion of remarks made against him by trial court observed that every word forming part of a judicial order forms permanent record, thus, use of denigrating remarks against anyone, especially against police officials impeaching their credibility is not the best course to be adopted by a judicial officer. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under: -

conviction, the practical difficulties which are faced by them cannot be overlooked and disregarded by the Courts. At the same time, such regard by the courts can not by any stretch of imagination or interpretation be take to be lack of power of the court to pass order regarding the power to point out any irregularity omission or commission of any act as directed by the Court, or any disobedience to obey the directions of the Court. This Court rather vide this order wants to convey that judicial strictures against anyone need to be passed with utmost circumspection. The judicial power comes with utmost responsibility to exercise adjudicatory liberty to express oneself. Judicial strictures against a police officer to the extent as expressed in the present case are problematic though every disapproval expressed by exercise of adjudicatory liberty of expression may not fall in the realm of lack of judicial restraint.

38. The strictures as passed in the present case to the extent of observing that the officer in question has no sense of responsibility and devotion towards duty and further directing the Commissioner of Police to take corrective measures and take action against the police official and further observing that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi may take a call as to whether the petitioner is fit for performing duties as SHO or not goes beyond the mandate of law, judicial precedents and discipline of judicial restraint. This does amount to over stepping adjudicatory liberty of expression exercised by a judge. Such observations have the effect of stigmatizing without conviction, sentencing without inquiry and affect career in future of an officer which had to be left to the internal administrative vigilance and disciplinary proceedings to be conducted by the parent department of the officer in question.”

18. Similarly, in Sanjay Kumar Sain (supra) this Court was dealing with a case wherein the petitioner therein had filed a criminal writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the orders passed by the trial court containing remarks and observation against the petitioner. The Court categorically noted that whenever the judicial officers are inclined to use harsh language against the investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities and devotion towards their duty, more control and caution must be exercised since passing of such comments may impair a person’s confidence, in addition to having a negative impact on his work and reputation. The relevant part of the decision reads thus:

Therefore, a thin wall that exists between the adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on part of authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind and perspective”. strictures, many a times, the strictures live on not only in public memory but also the memory of the recipient itself. Social memories tend to stigmatize the recipient, though the person passing strictures will enjoy judicial immunity due to his adjudicatory freedom of expression. In the present case, the learned Trial Court displeased due to delay in trial, had passed the orders impugned before this Court without realizing that the cause behind the delay was not the recipient of the strictures herein but the reasons beyond his control.

19. Likewise, in Sumit Gupta (supra) this Court in the following paragraphs observed as under:

observation and a request to the investigating agency to look into the same. Departmental action is a serious issue which can affect the career of a police personnel or any other public official for that matter and to make these observations/directions in such a cursory and casual manner is certainly not called for nor necessary;…………………………………………………..

8. In these facts and circumstances, it is directed that all extrajudicial remarks made against the police officers including the IO, DCP (South) and the Commissioner of Police are expunged from the orders dated 08 August, 2022, 17 August, 2022, 24 August, 2022, 29 August, 2022 and 31 August, 2022 passed by the Ld. ASJ, South District, Saket Courts in Bail Application 1395/2022 arising out of FIR No. 267/2022 PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi, as also all directions for conducting inquiries against police officers or notices that have been issued to the police officers for contempt or for criminal proceedings or otherwise are recalled and stand deleted from the said orders.”

20. In SI Maya Devi (supra) as well, this Court after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as, of this Court on the issue at hand, held as under:

the aspect of essence of judicial powers referring to Montesquieu's The Spirit of law as follows:—

21. The denigrating remarks to the effect that “DCP is not monitoring the investigation of the matters which shows that he is lacking the administrative skills” and further direction that copy of this order be sent to the concerned DCP for information and compliance and “also to the Commissioner of Police for taking note regarding the capability of DCP concerned”, in the judicial orders, have every possibility of finding its way to the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) of the petitioner in the form of an adverse entry. There is also strong possibility that any representation to a higher authority against such entry will be summarily rejected as the same would be premised on the judicial orders. Seen in this backdrop, strictures or disparaging remarks made in the judicial orders certainly have civil consequences because it may affect petitioner’s chances for promotion and to get other service-related benefits.

22. Apt would it be to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Public concerned for Governance Trust and others, (2007) 3 SCC 587, wherein it was observed as under: “..........in our opinion, when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play...........”

23. Clearly, the petitioner against whom the strictures or disparaging remarks have been made by the learned MACT in the judicial orders, was not given any opportunity of explaining or defending himself before making such remarks. Illustratively, a perusal of one such order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned MACT shows that the Tribunal noting the lackadaisical approach of IO(s) and SHO(s) in not furnishing the First Accident Report (‘FAR’, for short) within the requisite period of 48 hours as also not seeking extension of filing of untraced DAR, directed for issuance of notice to the petitioner to conduct an inquiry in this regard and send the concrete solutions for proper monitoring of filing of DAR. At the same time, it made disparaging remarks that the petitioner is not lacking the administrative skills and simultaneously, gave a direction to send the copy of the order to the Commissioner of Police for taking note regarding the capability of the petitioner.

24. Though non-adherence to the time lines provided statutorily or in the judicial pronouncements for filing the FAR, DAR etc. cannot be countenanced but at the same time the Courts should not be unmindful to practical difficulties which are encountered by the IOs in filing the FAR, DAR etc., including but not limited to, those articulated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and noted in para 10 above.

25. As noticed, the replies were submitted by the petitioner pursuant to passing of the orders containing impugned deprecatory remarks, in which he categorically mentioned that pursuant to the orders passed by the learned MACT, an inquiry has been conducted by the ACP and lapses have been found on the part of IOs as well as SHOs and for that show cause notices have been issued to the said officers. Misconduct reports have also been sent to DCP branch. Further, all ACPs and SHOs have also been directed to ensure that FAR, IAR and DAR are filed in accordance with the procedure contained in standing order no. 328/2010 as well as directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. Moreover, SHO(s) have also been directed to appear in person before the learned MACT.

26. Notably, the learned MACT did not wait for the petitioner to submit his concrete solutions as directed, rather the petitioner was imputed with the castigating remarks in the same order vide which the petitioner was directed to submit concrete solutions. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned MACT to consider the reply so submitted by the petitioner. Viewed in this light, the condemnation of the petitioner without affording him any meaningful opportunity to offer an explanation is a complete negation of the principles of natural justice.

27. Therefore, the learned MACT ought to have adopted a controlled and cautious approach while passing castigating remarks against the petitioner, more particularly, when such remarks could potentially affect his service career, besides having an adverse impact on his reputation. Plainly, the impugned remarks are contrary to the mandate of law and judicial precedents.

28. In the view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the disparaging remarks “which shows that DCP is not lacking the administrative skills”, as well as, the remarks “also to the Commissioner of Police for taking note regarding the capability of the DCP concerned” are expunged from the orders dated 21.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1178/2023, order dated 23.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1221/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MACT/606/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1167/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1161/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MACT/599/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1177/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MACT/606/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MACT/603/2023, order dated 23.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1281/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1174/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MACT/605/2023, order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MISC DJ/1160/2023, order dated 22.02.2024 passed in MACT/614/2023, order dated 24.02.2024 passed in MACT/644/2023, order dated 24.02.2024 passed in MACT/ 645/2023, order dated 24.02.2024 passed in MACT/646/2023, order dated 23.02.2024 passed in MISC/DJ/1284/2023, order dated 24.02.2024 passed in MISC/DJ/1247/2023, order dated 23.02.2024 passed in MISC/DJ/1286/2023, order dated 24.02.2024 passed in MISC/DJ/1243/2023, order dated 24.02.2024 passed in MACT/669/2023 and order dated 21.02.2024 passed in MACT/600/2023.

29. The petition alongwith pending application, stands disposed of. No cost.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. AUGUST 23, 2024/‘rs’/dss