# Anshu Gaur v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 12797 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anshu-gaur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51397
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - The
applicant sought to expunge remarks made
against him in paragraphs 105 and 106 of the
trial court's judgment dated 10.11.2021 in
Session Trial No. 460/2017, alleging they cast
aspersions on his conduct as a witness - Held,
the remarks were not sweeping or generalized
but based on a detailed analysis of the
applicant's St.ments and conduct, and thus did
not warrant expungement under Section 482
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. (Paras 14, 24,
26, 28)

Judicial Restraint and Remarks Against
Witnesses - The applicant argued that adverse
remarks violated principles of fairness and
judicial restraint, citing St. of U.P. Vs Mohammad
1 All. Anshu Gaur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941
Naim and other cases - Held, the cited
precedents
were
distinguishable
as
they
involved sweeping remarks against authorities
or
advocates
without
opportunity
for
explanation, whereas here, the remarks were
specific, evidence-based, and made after the
applicant's examination as PW-17, negating the
need for a separate hearing. (Paras 11-14, 1521, 24)

Conduct of Witness and Abuse of Process
- The trial court observed that the applicant, as
PW-17, concealed documents since 2017,
delayed his testimony despite 17 summons,
and filed a writ petition to record his
evidence, suggesting he acted as a "director"
of the litigation - Held, these actions,
including withholding documents and causing
delays, justified the trial court's finding of
abuse of judicial process, and the direction to
register a case for investigation was not
illegal. (Paras 7, 9, 24, 26)

Principles of Audi Alteram Partem - The
applicant contended that no opportunity was
given to address the remarks - Held, the
remarks were made post-examination and
cross-examination,
and
the
trial
court's
direction for investigation rather than a
conclusive finding did not violate principles of
natural justice, as the applicant had ample
opportunity to present his case during
testimony. (Paras 10, 21, 26)

Precedential Value and Factual Context -
The applicant relied on Mohammad Naim,
A.M. Mathur, and Neeraj Garg to argue
against the remarks - Held, these cases were
inapplicable due to differing factual contexts,
as per Bhavnagar University Vs Palitana Sugar
Mill and Escorts Lt Vs Commissioner of Central
Excise, since the remarks here were specific
to the applicant's conduct as a witness and
not generalized or unrelated to the cas(Paras
22, 23, 24)

Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section
482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 -
The court found the trial court's observations
aimed to prevent abuse of process and secure
justice, aligning with the objectives of Section
482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Held, no
interference was warranted as the remarks were
based on exceptional circumstances indicating
the applicant's misuse of judicial process, and
the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
(Paras 25, 27, 28)

Application Rejected.
List of Cases cited:

## Text

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel
for the appellant that a contra view has
been taken by the High Courts of Gujarat,
Delhi, Allahabad and Madras in Vinod Rao
v. State of Gujarat, Sant Ram v. Delhi
State, Mata Sewak Upadhyay v. State of
U.P.,
P.
Ramakrishnan
v.
State
respectively. He also pointed out that a
different view has been taken by the High
Court of Allahabad in Pankaj Shukla v.
Anirudh Singh without noticing the Full
Bench decision of the High Court of
Allahabad in Mata Sewak Upadhyay."

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
specifically approved the view taken in
Mata Sewak Upadhyay (Supra) by stating
that: -

"12. We approve the view taken
by the High Courts of Gujarat, Delhi,
Allahabad and Madras in Vinod Rao, Sant
Ram, Mata Sewak Upadhya and P.
Ramakrishnan and disapprove the view
taken by the High Court of Allahabad in
Pankaj Shukla"

15. The validity of the aforesaid
notification dated 31st July 1989 having
been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court
in Mata Sewak Upadhyay (Supra) and the
Full
Bench
decision
having
been
approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Aires Rodrigues (Supra), there is no
doubt that an offence under Section 506
IPC, if committed in the State of U.P. is a
cognizable offence.

16. Therefore, the submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicant lacks
merits and the same is accordingly rejected.
There is no illegality in the charge sheet no.
1 of 2023 dated 05.06.2023 under Sections
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of Case
Crime
No.
272/2023,
Police
Station
Lalganj, District Raebareli, and the order
dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4,
Raebareli in Case No. 24381 of 2023,
taking
cognizance
of
the
aforesaid
offences.

17. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12797 of 2023

Anshu Gaur ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - The
applicant sought to expunge remarks made
against him in paragraphs 105 and 106 of the
trial court's judgment dated 10.11.2021 in
Session Trial No. 460/2017, alleging they cast
aspersions on his conduct as a witness - Held,
the remarks were not sweeping or generalized
but based on a detailed analysis of the
applicant's St.ments and conduct, and thus did
not warrant expungement under Section 482
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. (Paras 14, 24,
26, 28)

Judicial Restraint and Remarks Against
Witnesses - The applicant argued that adverse
remarks violated principles of fairness and
judicial restraint, citing St. of U.P. Vs Mohammad
1 All. Anshu Gaur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941
Naim and other cases - Held, the cited
precedents
were
distinguishable
as
they
involved sweeping remarks against authorities
or
advocates
without
opportunity
for
explanation, whereas here, the remarks were
specific, evidence-based, and made after the
applicant's examination as PW-17, negating the
need for a separate hearing. (Paras 11-14, 1521, 24)

Conduct of Witness and Abuse of Process
- The trial court observed that the applicant, as
PW-17, concealed documents since 2017,
delayed his testimony despite 17 summons,
and filed a writ petition to record his
evidence, suggesting he acted as a "director"
of the litigation - Held, these actions,
including withholding documents and causing
delays, justified the trial court's finding of
abuse of judicial process, and the direction to
register a case for investigation was not
illegal. (Paras 7, 9, 24, 26)

Principles of Audi Alteram Partem - The
applicant contended that no opportunity was
given to address the remarks - Held, the
remarks were made post-examination and
cross-examination,
and
the
trial
court's
direction for investigation rather than a
conclusive finding did not violate principles of
natural justice, as the applicant had ample
opportunity to present his case during
testimony. (Paras 10, 21, 26)

Precedential Value and Factual Context -
The applicant relied on Mohammad Naim,
A.M. Mathur, and Neeraj Garg to argue
against the remarks - Held, these cases were
inapplicable due to differing factual contexts,
as per Bhavnagar University Vs Palitana Sugar
Mill and Escorts Lt Vs Commissioner of Central
Excise, since the remarks here were specific
to the applicant's conduct as a witness and
not generalized or unrelated to the cas(Paras
22, 23, 24)

Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section
482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 -
The court found the trial court's observations
aimed to prevent abuse of process and secure
justice, aligning with the objectives of Section
482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Held, no
interference was warranted as the remarks were
based on exceptional circumstances indicating
the applicant's misuse of judicial process, and
the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
(Paras 25, 27, 28)

Application Rejected.
List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC
703

2. A.M. Mathur Vs Promod Kumar Gupta & Ors.,
(1990) 2 SCC 533

3. Neeraj Garg Vs Sarita Rani & Ors., (2021) 9
SCC 92

4. Bhavnagar University Vs Palitana Sugar Mill
(P) Lt, (2003) 2 SCC 111

5. Escorts Lt Vs Commissioner of Central Excise,
New Delhi, (2004) 8 SCC 335

6. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lt Vs N.R.
Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579

7. Vira Wali Manga Vs Sarita Rani, 2017 SCC
OnLine Utt 1946

8. Landour Community Hospital Vs Sandeep
Bishnoi, Second Appeal No. 190 of 2019,
decided on 22-11-2019

9. Vinod Kumar Vs Mandir Laxmi Narayan, 2020
SCC OnLine Utt 1199

10. Parul Prakash Vs Anil Prakash, 2021 SCC
OnLine Utt 924

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant
Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the
State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant has prayed to expunge the
remarks/ observation made against him in
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paras 105 & 106 of the judgment and order
dated 10.11.2021 passed by the learned
Special Judge, M.P., M.L.A./ Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Lucknow in
Session Trial No. 460/2017 arising out of
Case Crime No. 29/2017, under Sections
376D, 354A-1, 504, 506, 509 IPC &
Section 5g/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Gautam Palli, District Lucknow, casting
aspersions
on
the
conduct
of
the
applicant.

3. The aforesaid case alleged
commission of offences by 7 accused
persons, including a minister. It was
alleged that the Minister and another
accused person had administered some
intoxicating substance to the informant
and had raped her. They had prepared
obscene photographs of the informant and
by misusing those photos, all the accused
persons repetitively raped the informant.
However, when they tried to rape her 17
years old daughter, the informant resisted
them and she filed the F.I.R.

4. A perusal of the judgment
indicates that after completion of the
prosecution evidence and recording of
statements of the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also after
recording of their statements under
Section 313(5) Cr.P.C., the applicant had
filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21263
of 2020 for recording of his evidence and
thereafter he was examined on 16.09.2021
as PW-17. He stated that in October, 2016,
the informant, whom he referred to as her
'Muh Boli Bahan' had told her that she was
being harassed by persons of the minister
and soon she would call the applicant for
her help. Thereafter the informant had
called the applicant and he came to
Lucknow and while the applicant was
sitting in a car with the informant and the
later was telling him about the offences
committed against her, the applicant was
attacked, but somehow he remained unhurt.
The applicant further stated that for getting
justice for the informant and her daughter,
he had talked to an advocate of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and thereafter the advocate
had filed a writ petition and the applicant
was personally present in the Court at the
time of hearing of the writ petition. The
informant did not have money and,
therefore, the applicant and some other
persons had contributed money and had
given the same to the informant. During
that period, the informant came to know
that the Investigating Officer wanted to
record statement of the informant and she
stated that she would give statement at New
Delhi in presence of her advocate.
Thereafter, statement of the informant's
daughter was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. in Tees Hazari Court.

5. It is also mentioned in the trial
court's judgment that the Investigating
Officer had made repetitive phone calls to
the advocate for recording statement of the
informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
whereupon the applicant and the informant
came to Lucknow through a flight and got
her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. in the Court and thereafter they
returned to Delhi through flight on the
same day.

6. After recording of statement of the
applicant
as
PW-17,
the
additional
statement of the accused person were
recorded wherein the accused Minister
stated that the applicant had taken the
informant under his influence and has
given false evidence due to political
animosity. Another accused person stated
that the applicant is a criminal who had
been externed from the district and he had
1 All. Anshu Gaur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943
levelled false allegations with the object of
extracting money.

7. In paragraphs 105 and 106 of the
judgment, the trial court has stated that the
applicant and another person Ram Singh
Rajpoot have acted as directors in the
matter. After taking note of the facts stated
in the preceding paragraphs of this order,
the trial court noted that the applicant had
got a writ petition filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after concealing the fact
that the informant had already filed an FIR
with the same allegations in October, 2016.
The trial court has observed that the
applicant and Ram Singh Rajpoot had
documents regarding the case available
with them since the year 2017 but they did
not make the same available to the
Investigating Officer in spite of attempts
made by him and they concealed the
documents, from which it appears that they
were waiting for some deal to be struck out
which might benefit them. Summons were
issued to the applicant on as many as 17
occasions but still he did not appear and
when the opportunity of his evidence was
closed, he filed a writ petition for getting
his statement recorded. Even after passing
of the order by this Court, he caused undue
delay in recording of the statement and
dragged the statement for several dates.
After conclusion of the cross-examination,
the applicant filed several documentary
evidences regarding which he admitted that
those were available with him since the
year 2017 but he did not give the same to
the Investigating Officer.

8. The Court observed that the person
who can go to the Supreme Court and file a
writ petition, could certainly have brought
the documents on record. When an order
was passed on 27.10.2021 that the
documents were not admissible for want of
a certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, the applicant filed
another
application
for
proving
the
documents. The explanation for delay in
producing the documents given by the
applicant was that he was afraid of the
Minister whereas the minister was lodged
in district jail since the year 2017 and he
was not related to the ruling party.

9. After noting the aforesaid facts, the
court observed that the aforesaid acts of the
applicant and the two other persons shake
the conscience of the court and it amounts
to an abuse of the process of law and that
the persons who misuse the judicial process
and keep on changing their stand to achieve
their objects, need to be punished after
proper investigation. Accordingly, the court
ordered registration of a case against the
applicant and some other persons, and
investigate the same.

10. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that no opportunity
of hearing has been accorded to the
applicant before making the aforesaid
observations.

11. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, the learned court has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of State of U.P. v.
Mohammad Naim: AIR 1964 SC 703, A.
M. Mathur v. Promod Kumar Gupta &
Ors.: (1990) 2 SCC 533, Neeraj Garg v.
Sarita Rani & Ors.: (2021) 9 SCC 92.

12. In the case of Mohammad Naim
(supra) the Judge had made the following
remarks against the entire police force:-

"(a) If I had felt that with my lone
efforts I could have cleaned this augean
stable, which is the police force, I would
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not have hesitated to wage this war single
handed."

(b) That there is not a single
lawless group in the whole of the country
whose record of crime comes anywhere
near the record of that organised unit
which is known as the Indian Police Force.

(c) Where every fish barring
perhaps a few stinks, it is idle to pick out
one or two and say that it stinks."

13. In the aforesaid context, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"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, fair-play 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."

14. In the present case, no sweeping
remarks have been made against any
officer or authority or the system. The
observations have been made against the
conduct of a witness, after taking into note
in detail the witness's statement and his
conduct.
Therefore,
the
ratio
of
Mohammad Naim (supra) will not apply
with the facts of the present case.

15. In A. M. Mathur (Supra), Writ
Petitions filed challenging a policy decision
of the State Government of Madhya
Pradesh with regard to construction of new
distilleries, were allowed by a Division
Bench. The appellant A. M. Mathur had
appeared in those Writ Petitions on behalf
of the State Government as the Advocate
General of the State. The learned Acting
Chief Justice had delivered the main
judgment in the writ petitions invalidating
the decision of the government on the
ground that it violated Article 14 of the
Constitution. The other Judge, Justice B.M.
Lal had delivered a separate concurring
opinion in which he had made highly
disparaging remarks attributing mala fides
and underhand dealing to the State
Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had allowed appeal preferred by the State
and the judgment of the High Court was set
aside and the strictures made by Justice B.
M. Lal had been disapproved strongly by
stating that "the observations made and
strictures passed by B.M. Lal, J. were
totally unjustified and unwarranted and
they ought not to have been made."

16. An advocate who had no
connection whatsoever with the earlier
1 All. Anshu Gaur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
945
litigation, filed a review petition before the
High Court after a delay of 738 days, inter
alia alleging that the State Government had
procured the judgment from the Supreme
Court by committing fraud. The matter was
listed for admission before a bench
consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.P. Sen
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.M. Lal on
29.20.1988. After arguments, C. P. Sen, J.
seems to have dictated his order in the open
court dismissing the review petition. He
expressed the view that the petitioner had
no locus standi to file the review petition
and the economically well-to-do parties to
the writ petitions who lost their case before
this Court did not choose to file any review
petition. He also held that the petition for
review was not maintainable before the
High Court since the decision of the High
Court had been reversed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The petition was also held
to be hopelessly barred by limitation and
there was no sufficient cause for condoning
the inordinate delay.

17. However, B.M. Lal, J. did not
pass any order on 29.10.1988 and he
pronounced his order on 06.02.1989. Mr
Mathur had tendered his resignation as
Advocate General on 25.01.1989. Mr
Gupta filed an application dated 25.01.1989
requesting the court to take judicial notice
of some extract of the Vidhan Sabha
proceedings
and
to
pass
appropriate
strictures against the appellant. That
application was not served on the appellant
nor did the court give him any opportunity
to file his counter. On 06.02.1989, the said
application was taken on record and on the
same day B.M. Lal, J. pronounced his order
dismissing the review petition and he made
disparaging remarks against the appellant,
who by then was a former Advocate
General. Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"15. Learned Judge having held
that the High Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the review petition ought not to
have commented on the professional
conduct of the appellant and that too
without an opportunity for him. We regret
to note that the observations made and
aspersions cast on the professional conduct
of the appellant are not only without
jurisdiction, but also they are wholly and
utterly unjustified and unwarranted."

18.

In
the
aforesaid
factual
background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had further observed that: -

"13.
Judicial
restraint
and
discipline are as necessary to the orderly
administration of justice as they are to the
effectiveness of the army. The duty of
restraint, this humility of function should be
constant theme of our judges. This quality
in decision making is as much necessary
for judges to command respect as to protect
the independence of the judiciary. Judicial
restraint in this regard might better be
called judicial respect, that is, respect by
the judiciary. Respect to those who come
before the court as well to other coordinate branches of the State, the
executive and the legislature. There must
be mutual respect. When these qualities fail
or when litigants and public believe that
the judge has failed in these qualities, it
will be neither good for the judge nor for
the judicial process.

14. The Judge's Bench is a seat of
power. Not only do judges have power to
make binding decision, their decisions
legitimate the use of power by other
officials. The judges have the absolute and
unchallengeable control of the court
domain. But they cannot misuse their
authority
by
intemperate
comments,
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undignified banter or scathing criticism of
counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede
that the court has the inherent power to act
freely upon its own conviction on any
matter coming before it for adjudication,
but it is a general principle of the highest
importance to the proper administration
of justice that derogatory remarks ought
not to be made against persons or
authorities whose conduct comes into
consideration unless it is absolutely
necessary for the decision of the case to
animadvert on their conduct."

19. The aforesaid observations made
in light of the peculiar facts of the case
where the appellant had appeared in the
Writ Petitions as Advocate General of the
State, the Acting Chief Justice had
delivered the main judgment allowing the
writ petitions but the other Judge, Justice
B.M. Lal had delivered a separate
concurring judgment in which he had
made highly disparaging remarks against
the State Government, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had allowed appeal
preferred by the State, set aside the
judgment and had strongly disapproved
the strictures made by Justice B. M. Lal,
thereafter an advocate who had no
connection with the earlier litigation, had
filed a highly belated review petition
before the High Court and the presiding
Judge of the Bench had dismissed the
review in open Court on 29.20.1988 on
the grounds that the petitioner has no
locus standi and the review petition was
not maintainable since the decision of the
High Court had been reversed by the
Supreme Court and the petition was
hopelessly barred by limitation and there
was no sufficient cause for condoning the
inordinate delay. Justice B. M. Lal did
not pronounce his order. The appellant
had resigned from the office of Advocate
General on 25.01.1989. On 16.02.1989 the
petitioner filed an application requesting
the court to pass strictures against the
appellant, without serving its copy on the
appellant and B. M. Lal, J. passed an order
on the same day dismissing the review
petition and he made disparaging remarks
against the appellant.

20. Lastly in Neeraj Garg v. Sarita
Rani, (2021) 9 SCC 92, severe adverse
remarks were made against the Appellant
Counsel in four orders passed by an
Hon'ble Judge in four different cases, i.e.
W.P. (M/S) No. 2216 of 2017 and W.P.
(M/S) No. 2208 of 2017 titled Vira Wali
Manga v. Sarita Rani 2017 SCC OnLine
Utt 1946, Second Appeal No. 190 of
2019 titled Landour Community Hospital
v. Sandeep Bishnoi, Second Appeal No.
190 of 2019, decided on 22-11-2019,
Second
Appeal
No.
182
of
2019
titled Vinod
Kumar v. Mandir
Laxmi
Narayan, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 1199,
WP (M/S) No. 519 of 2019 titled Parul
Prakash v. Anil
Prakash ,
2021
SCC
OnLine Utt 924. It was inter alia
submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court
that
the
appellant,
with
an
otherwise
unblemished
professional
record, had no occasion to suffer such
adverse remarks from any other Judge of
the High Court. Before his elevation to
the Bench on 19-5-2017, the Judge
concerned was a member of the same Bar
as the appellant and both were rival
counsel in several contested matters and
the comments may have emanated from
personal prejudice and may not be
otherwise warranted. It is argued that the
appellant should not be made to suffer
adverse comments on his conduct as a
lawyer only because the Judge concerned
may not appreciate the efforts made by the
counsel, on behalf of his client.
1 All. Anshu Gaur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
947

21. Allowing the appeal of the
Advocate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"16. Having
perused
the
offending comments recorded in the High
Court judgments, we feel that those could
have
been
avoided
as
they
were
unnecessary for deciding the disputes.
Moreover, they appear to be based on the
personal perception of the learned Judge. It
is also apparent that the learned Judge did
not,
before
recording
the
adverse
comments, give any opportunity to the
appellant to put forth his explanation. The
remarks so recorded have cast aspersion
on the professional integrity of the
appellant. Such condemnation of the
counsel, without giving him an opportunity
of being heard would be a negation of the
principles of audi alteram partem. The
requisite degree of restraint and sobriety
expected in such situations is also found to
be missing in the offending comments.

17. The tenor of the remarks
recorded against the appellant will not only
demean him amongst his professional
colleagues but may also adversely impact
his professional career. If the comments
remain
unexpunged
in
the
Court
judgments, it will be a cross that the
appellant will have to bear, all his life. To
allow him to suffer thus, would in our view
be prejudicial and unjust."

22.

While
considering
the
applicability of the observations made in
the precedents cited by the learned Counsel
for the applicant, this Court has to take into
consideration
the
following
well
established
principle
of
the
law
of
precedents
reiterated
in
Bhavnagar
University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111:-

"A decision, as is well known, is
an authority for which it is decided and not
what can logically be deduced therefrom. It
is also well settled that a little difference in
facts or additional facts may make a lot of
difference in the precedential value of a
decision."

23. Again, in Escorts Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, New
Delhi, (2004) 8 SCC 335 and in Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N. R.
Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that:-

"8. Courts should not place
reliance on decisions without discussing as
to how the factual situation fits in with the
fact situation of the decision on which
reliance is placed. Observations of courts
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems
nor as provisions of a statute and that too
taken
out
of
their
context.
These
observations must be read in the context in
which they appear to have been stated.
Judgments of courts are not to be construed
as statutes."

24. Therefore, the observations made
in the judgments cited by the learned
Counsel for the applicant will have to be
read in the context of the peculiar factual
background in those cases, which are in no
way similar to the facts of the present case.
In the present case, the observations have
been made against a witness after recording
of his statement in his examination-in-chief
and
the
cross-examination
and
after
discussing the applicant's statements and
the other circumstances showing his
conduct in detail. After noting the aforesaid
facts, the court observed that the acts of the
applicant and the two other persons shake
the conscience of the court and it amounts
to an abuse of the process of law. The
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons who misuse the judicial process
and keep on changing their stand to achieve
their objects, need to be punished after
proper investigation. Accordingly, the court
ordered registration of a case against the
applicant and some other persons, and
investigate the same.

25. It is correct that the Courts should
not normally make observations against
Judges, parties to litigation, advocates and
witnesses which may have an adverse
impact on their reputation or their future
prospects, but it is not that the Court cannot
make observations about the conduct of a
litigant or a witness even in an exceptional
case where the witness appears to have
acted as a director of the litigation and to
have abused the process of law. From the
facts of the case narrated above, the present
case appears to be an exceptional cases and
it appears that the trial Court has made the
observations
keeping
in
view
the
exceptional circumstances of the case
arising out of the conduct of the applicant.

26. Moreover, while making the
observations, the trial Court has not
recorded by conclusive finding and the
Court has merely directed that a case
should be registered against the applicant
and it should be investigated. Therefore,
the mere order of registration of a case and
investigation passed after detailed analysis
of the statements of the applicant and of his
conduct, appears not to be suffering from
any illegality warranting interference in
exercise of power of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

27. Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes
the inherent powers of this Court to pass
orders necessary to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. It appears that the
learned
trial
Court
has
made
the
observations under challenge to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court and to
secure the ends of justice and no
interference
is
warranted
in
the
observations in exercise of this Court's
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

28. Accordingly, the application lacks
merit and the same is rejected.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 948
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 17997 of 2009

Dullu @ Mahoob & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Diwakar Shukla, Sri Abhishek Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mohd. Asim Zulfikar

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506
- Application u/s 482 - for quashing the further
criminal proceedings - FIR - offence of rape -
charge-sheet - compromise - compromise was
verified by the trial court - applicant urged that,
applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party
No. 2 both are major and willingly got married -
victim
also
in
her
Statement
willingly
accompanied to applicant no. 1 and also
married without nay coercion, therefore case u/s
376 IPC is not made out - court finds that, both
applicant no.1 and victim are living as husband
and wife and out of their wedlock four children
have borne and fact of entering in compromise
which was duly verified by the trial court are not