Special Police Establishment vs The State Of M.P.
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18755
1 MCRC-29124-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
th
ON THE 13 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29124 of 2026
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Amit Bhatia, Government Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Alok Awasthi
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner/department
seeking expungement of the adverse remarks made by the learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mandsaur against the Investigating
Officer, DSP Sunil Kumar Talan, in the impugned order dated 14.02.2026
passed in MJCR No.787/2025, whereby the closure report submitted by the
petitioner was rejected.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 01.06.2000, the
respondent No.2 joined service as a Salesman in Krishak Seva Sahakari
Samiti, Dhundhadka. An FIR bearing Crime No.35/2021 was registered
under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 15-07-2026
17:32:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18755
2 MCRC-29124-2026
on the basis of source information alleging disproportionate assets to the tune
of 905.55%. After detailed investigation, which included scrutiny of bank
records, land registries, and statements of joint family members, the
Investigating Officer calculated the disproportionate assets at 9.06% only.
The closure report was submitted before the learned Special Judge on
20.09.2025. The learned Special Judge rejected the closure report vide the
impugned order dated 14.02.2026 and made serious adverse remarks against
the Investigating Officer without affording him any opportunity of hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse remarks
cast serious aspersions on the integrity of the Investigating Officer and
superior officers without giving them any opportunity to explain their stand.
He submits that such remarks are unwarranted, unjustified, and liable to be
expunged. To bolster his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the following judgements :-
(i) The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC
703.
(ii) S. K. Viswambaran Vs. E. Koyakunju & Others, 1987 (2) SCC
109
(iii) Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Another Vs. State of Assam & Another,
1996 (6) SCC 234
(iv) Manish Dixit & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) SCC 596
(v) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary & Others, 2019 (11
SCC 575
(vi) Smt. Monika Waghmare Vs. State of MP & (MCRC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 15-07-2026
17:32:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18755
3 MCRC-29124-2026
No.37842/2018 dt. 28.06.2019)
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and
supported the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that learned Trial Court vide impugned
order dated 14.02.2026 passed the following adverse remarks against the
Investigating Officer of the petitioner/department:-
'' /
इस कार ववेचना अिधकार ारा उपरो ानुसार अनावेदन अिभयु नंद कशोर धाकड़ क
-
संपूण सेवाकाल के दौरान म $ क आय &यय क गणना कये जाने म $ गंभीर अिनयिमतताएं
एवं ,ुटयां का .रत क गई ह 1 । ऐसे त 4य जो अिभलेख के प .रशीलन से ह थम 789या :प;
ह 1 और कसी भी सामा =य >ावान &य ारा मा , अिभलेख को ह देखकर सरलता से >ात
,
कये जा सकते ह 1 का लोप कया गया है और ऐसा दिश त होता है क ववेचना अिधकार
/
सुनील कुमार तालान ारा अनावेदक अिभयु से भावत होकर जानबूझकर उसे उ
,
अपराध से ितBछादत कये जाने के आशय से गणना कये जाने म $ लोप कया गया है
Dजससे ववेचना म $ उनक भूिमका गंभीर Eप से संदेह क प .रिध म $ है। यह भी क उ
/
ववेचना अिधकार के खा Fमा ितवेदन से सहमत होकर व .रG अिधकार अिधका .रयH ारा
द :तावेजH का प .रशीलन कये बना अनुमोदन कये जाने से उनक भी भूिमका संदेहा :पद
: :
है। अत खा Fमा ितवेदन अ :वीकार कर उपरो ानुसार त 4यH के संबंध म $ पुन अनुसंधान
कर ितवेदन :तुत करने हेतु न :ती वशेष पुिलस :थापना लोकायु काया लय इकाई
उ Jजैन को वापस क जाए। महािनदेशक लोकायु काया लय भोपाल को अि Kम एवं उिचत
''
काय वाह हेतु आदेश क ित स हत प , ेषत कया जाए।
7. The Apex Court in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Mohammad Naim (supra) has laid down clear guidelines for making
disparaging remarks against persons whose conduct comes under judicial
scrutiny. The Court must ensure:
(a) the person concerned is before the Court or has been given an
opportunity of explaining/defending himself;
(b) there is sufficient evidence on record justifying the remarks; and
(c) the remarks are necessary for the decision of the case. Judicial
pronouncements must maintain sobriety, moderation, and restraint.
8. Relevant para of the said judgement is as follows :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 15-07-2026
17:32:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18755
4 MCRC-29124-2026
"The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional
nature in which the learned judge should have exercised his
inherent jurisdiction under s. 561-A Cr. P. C. in respect of the
observations complained of by the State Government ? If there is
one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of
justice, it is this : the proper freedom and independence of judges
and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to
perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue
interference by any body, even by this court. At the same time it is
equally necessary that in expressing their opinions judges and
Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fairplay
and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations
defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been
judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging
remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into
consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them,
it is relevant to consider (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. It has also been recognised
that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and
should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and
reserve."
9. In the present case, it is undisputed that neither the Investigating
Officer nor the superior officers were issued any notice nor were they
afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned adverse
remarks. The remarks cast serious doubts on their integrity and allege
deliberate shielding of the accused. Such observations, without granting an
opportunity of being heard, are unsustainable in law.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the adverse remarks made against the Investigating Officer, DSP
Sunil Kumar Talan, and the superior officers were uncalled for and cannot be
sustained.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 15-07-2026
17:32:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18755
5 MCRC-29124-2026
part. The following adverse remarks contained in the last paragraph of the
impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act, Mandsaur in MJCR No.787/2025, are hereby
expunged:-
"... /
ऐसा दिश त होता है क ववेचना अिधकार सुनील कुमार तालान ारा अनावेदक अिभयु
से भावत होकर जानबूझकर उसे उ अपराध से ितBछादत कये जाने के आशय से
,
गणना कये जाने म $ लोप कया गया है Dजससे ववेचना म $ उनक भूिमका गंभीर Eप से
संदेह क प .रिध म $ है। यह भी क उ ववेचना अिधकार के खा Fमा ितवेदन से सहमत
/
होकर व .रG अिधकार अिधका .रयH ारा द :तावेजH का प .रशीलन कये बना अनुमोदन कये
"
जाने से उनक भी भूिमका संदेहा :पद है।
12. Consequently, no action shall be taken by the respondent/State or
any authority against the Investigating Officer, DSP Sunil Kumar Talan, or
the superior officers pursuant to the expunged remarks.
13. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands allowed to the
extent mentioned herein-above, with no order as to costs.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
gp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 15-07-2026
17:32:03