Adverse Judicial Remarks Against Investigating Officers Cannot Be Sustained Without Affording Opportunity of Hearing

The respondent No. 2, a Salesman at a Krishak Seva Sahakari Samiti, was investigated for possessing disproportionate assets (DA) following an FIR (Crime No. 35/2021) alleging a 905.55% disparity

After investigation, DSP Sunil Kumar Talan submitted a closure report asserting the DA was only 9.06%

The Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mandsaur, rejected the closure report on 14.02.2026 and made adverse remarks against the Investigating Officer (IO) and his superiors, alleging they deliberately shielded the accused and acted with doubtful integrity

The petitioner department sought expungement of these remarks under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

1. Whether the adverse remarks and aspersions cast by the Trial Court against the Investigating Officer and superior officers without affording them an opportunity of hearing are legally sustainable

2. Whether the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by departing from the principles of judicial restraint and sobriety in its judicial pronouncement

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703), which established the "cardinal importance" of judicial restraint and set three criteria for disparaging remarks: (a) the party must be given an opportunity to explain, (b) there must be sufficient evidence justifying the conduct, and (c) the remarks must be necessary for the decision of the case

S. K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju & Others and Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka v. State of Assam regarding the requirement of fairness toward non-parties

The Court observed that the Trial Court’s order attributed serious motives—such as being "influenced" by the accused and "deliberately" omitting facts—to the IO and superior officers

the High Court found that the Trial Court failed to satisfy the Mohammad Naim criteria: neither the IO nor the superior officers were issued notice or granted an opportunity to defend their actions before the remarks were recorded

The Court reasoned that judicial pronouncements must maintain sobriety and moderation; making sweeping generalizations that cast doubt on the integrity of officers without a hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice and is an unsustainable exercise of judicial discretion

The petition was allowed in part; the High Court expunged the specific Hindi portions of the order that alleged deliberate shielding of the accused and described the officers’ roles as "suspicious"

Consequently, the Court directed that no administrative action shall be taken against DSP Sunil Kumar Talan or his superiors based on the expunged remarks