Blog

Chandra Shekhar & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. On 2 March, 2023

Facts of the Case:

Both petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 (Raj Kumar) are currently employed by PS Defence Colony as the SHO and HC, respectively. In proceedings related to FIR No. 221/2022, PS Defence Colony, Sh. Sonu Agnihotri, Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, issued orders dated January 21 and January 31 that contained statements made against the petitioners. This petition was filed to have those statements expunged. The Ld. ASJ adds that the SCRB report was not updated despite his prior instructions around a year and a half ago in another FIR, which yet another issue is pertaining to updating the status of proceedings against accused parties. As a result, the Ld. ASJ issued show-cause notices to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 177 IPC for providing false information, and he also sent a copy of the order to the DCP, South, asking him to find out how the petitioners contributed to the case’s investigation in light of the court’s observations and directing him to submit an Action Taken Report against them to the court.

Judgment:

“A judge must behave judiciously and voice his opinions when dealing with the work of dispensing justice, but he should use caution while addressing the behavior of others. You must not cross the line of discretion. “A Judge ought to know that any statement against any government authority, organ, or person in charge of conducting investigations or performing executive functions can lacerate, slash, and mutilate his reputation into pieces and cause irreparable harm,” it said. It may negatively impact such people’s careers. The Court also pointed out that there could have been a mistake on the part of the investigating officer, but even in that case, they ought to be informed and given a chance to be heard before any legal or administrative action is taken. Furthermore, it was claimed that even if there had been a mistake made by the petitioners while serving as police officers, the Trial Court could have noted it and instructed that similar mistakes should not be made in the future. However, ordering the administrative authorities or superior police authorities to take legal or departmental action against the petitioners only served to confirm that “the petitioners were also convicted along with the accused persons in the present case” and to allow for appropriate sentencing.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgment Reviewed by Kushala Simha