SUNNY GUPTA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer for calling the record of Criminal Challan/FIR No. 25-Sessions titled State of J&K Vs. Bashir Ahmed and ors. from the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Special Judge u/ss22 of NIA Act) and for expunging the adverse remarks, observations and directions made by the Ld. Judge in order dtd. 2/6/2021 against the petitioner at page No. 15, 16 and 17 of the order dtd. 2/6/2021 and for quashing/setting aside the impugned adverse remarks and observations made against the petitioner on the following grounds:-

(2.) Respondents have opposed the petition by filing objections, wherein, they have contended, that the petitioner was deputed as I/O in FIR No. 01/2020 of Police Station Dachan, therefore, the duty was caste upon him to collect the evidence admissible in accordance with law against the accused persons, that as per the investigation disclosure memo, seizure memo, categorization certificate and statements of witnesses U/S 161/164 Cr.PC and circumstances offences U/s 3/25,7/25 I.A. Act 20 ULA Act were incorporated, detail of offences proved against the accused into the instant investigation depicts, that offences U/S 13/18/20/38 ULA (P) Act have been proved against terrorist namely (1) Mohd Amin@Jahangir Saroori S/O Mohd Anwar Butt R/O Bhadat Saroor, (2) Mudassir Ahmed S/O Tariq Hussain Gianoo R/O Tander Dachan and (3)Reyaz Ahmed S/O Mohd Ramzan R/O Renaie Marwah; Offences u/ss 13/18/19/39 ULA Act have been proved against (1) Bashir Ahmed S/O Lal Din Mingnoo R/O Kripakhnoo (2) Wali Mohd S/O Ghulam Mohd R/O Dangduru (3) Bashir Ahmed S/O Abdul Gani Sheikh R/O Dangduru (4) Zahoor Ahmed S/O Sana Ulla Butt R/O Loharna (5) Yassir Hussain S/O Ghulam Mohd Dar R/O Danduru (6) Ghulam Nabi Chupan S/O Abdul Aziz Chupan R/O Trungaie

(3.) Mr. Sunil Sethi Ld. Sr. Counsel for petitioner while strongly laying emphasis for expunging the adverse/derogatory remarks and observations made by the Ld. Trial Court against the petitioner has vehemently argued, that though it is right of the courts to make free and fearless comments and observations on the one hand, but there is corresponding need for maintaining sobriety, moderation and restraint regarding the character, conduct, integrity, credibility etc. of parties or witnesses or others concerned, moreso, the Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint and it is not infrequent that sweeping generalization defeat the very purpose. It is argued, that in the case in hand, the derogatory and uncalled for remarks made by the Ld. Trial Court against the petitioner who is Dy. SP in police department viz; that the petitioner (I/O) has conducted investigation in a lethargic and sluggish manner, much better investigation could be conducted by a head constable, how the petitioner has qualified the administrative examination of state and has become Dy. SP in Police Department, during investigation of the case in FIR No. 268/2019 of P/S Kishtwar petitioner/I/O has acted in a manner which has demolished the case due to his sheer incompetency and negligence, are harsh/disparaging which should not have been made by the trial court which was only dealing with a question of charge/discharge of accused, moreso, higher the forum and greater the powers, the greater is the need for restraint and the more mellowed the reproach should be. Reliance has been placed on (i) AIR1986 Supreme Court 819 [Niranjan Patnaik, Appellant Versus Shashibhusan Kar and another, Respondents], (ii) AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1737 [ A.M. Mathur, Appellant Versus Pramod Kumar Gupta, Respondent] and (iii) 1995 Supreme (SC) 1019 [ Abani Kanta Ray Versus State of Orissa].