Unheard strictures against a person’s integrity and character violate principles of natural justice and must be set aside.

The appellant, a police official, challenged an order dated 23/01/2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in Criminal Appeal (CRA) No. 13186/2024.

In that order, the Single Judge passed strictures against the appellant’s integrity and professional conduct in paragraphs 12 and 13, and directed the Director General of Police to take action.

The appellant filed this intra-court writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, contending that the remarks were made without granting him an opportunity to be heard.

The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a writ appeal against an order passed in criminal proceedings.

1. Whether a writ appeal is maintainable against strictures passed by a Single Judge while exercising criminal appellate jurisdiction, especially when a reference on this point is pending before a Full Bench.

2. Whether the strictures passed against the appellant in the impugned order are sustainable in the absence of a prior show-cause notice or hearing.

Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 regarding intra-court appeals.

No castigating remarks or strictures should be passed against a person whose career may be affected without providing an opportunity to be heard, as established in Manish Dixit and Others v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 1 SCC 596.

Condemnation without a hearing is a complete negation of fundamental legal principles, as emphasized in Dilip Kumar Deka (Dr) v. State of Assam.

The Division Bench observed that while a reference regarding the maintainability of such appeals is pending before a Full Bench (W.A. No. 990/2021), the urgent need for "complete justice" outweighed the necessity to wait.

The Court noted that the Single Judge had passed severe remarks regarding the appellant's integrity and working without issuing a show-cause notice.

The Court held that even though efficiency in investigation is vital for society, it cannot bypass the basic requirement of the right to be heard.

The Court determined that the impugned remarks directly impacted the appellant's reputation and career, necessitating a procedural correction rather than an adjudication on factual merits.

The matter was remanded to the Single Judge to decide whether adverse remarks are warranted after considering the appellant’s reply, with the remark in paragraph 12 treated only as a prima facie opinion.

The bail granted to the original respondents remained undisturbed, and the appeal was disposed of with these directions.