Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Expunge Trial Court's Deleterious Remarks Against IO, Says Order Satisfies 'Triple Test'

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea moved by an Assistant Sub Inspector (“petitioner”) seeking to expunge certain deleterious remarks made about him by a trial court, while he was acting as the Investigating officer in a criminal case.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the order of the trial court satisfied the "triple test" prescribed to Courts before making disparaging remarks against any person/authority.

It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an IO in relation to an FIR filed for the offence of criminal trespass in which charge sheet was filed by the petitioner. The trial court acquitted the accused granting benefit of doubt and passed disparaging remarks about the petitioner.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the public prosecutor that the remarks were made only in relation to shoddy investigation conducted by the petitioner in the case.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Naim in which the Apex Court laid down the following three parameters to be considered by the courts while passing disparaging remarks against persons/authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the court:

“(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.”

The Court observed that the petitioner was cross-examined by the trial court in the matter wherein he modified his statements multiple times. Hence, proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.

Secondly, it was opined that sufficient evidence was placed on record by the trial court justifying such remarks by explicitly stating arbitrary acts of the petitioner like conducting a shoddy investigation; seizing the property based on assumption without following procedure; calling the accused to the police station prior to any investigation, etc.

Finally, the Court also ruled that the negligent investigation conducted by the petitioner directly affected the matter before the trial court because due to that, the trial court was compelled to acquit the accused on the basis of benefit of doubt.

Based on this analysis, the Court held that the order of the trial court was a well-reasoned one reflecting no irregularity. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Giriraj Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 251

Click Here To Read/Download Order