C. L. Pangarkar, J. - (1.)This is an application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure for expunging the remarks against the applicant.
(2.)A few facts may be narrated thus -The applicant is a practicing lawyer at Nandura, in Distt. Buldhana. He has unblemished career as a lawyer. One Manda filed a report with police about harassment to her by her husband and his relatives. The police, upon her report investigated the crime and filed charge-sheet against husband and the relatives. In that criminal case Manda - the wife - engaged the applicant on her behalf to assist the prosecutor. The applicant merely assisted the Assistant Public prosecutor in conducting the case before the Magistrate. The Magistrate delivered the judgment and in that judgment made following observations.
"C.this fact itself creates a serious doubt over the testimony of the complainant Sau. Manda as regards to harassment caused to her at the hands of the accused, which is nothing but the whole parroting like version of complainant Manda came to be brought on record to corroborate the report prepared by her counsel Shri Inder Jain from nandura with conspiracy levelling the baseless allegations against the accused. " d. In the light of above discussion, I am of the opinion, the false report with the conspiracy of her advocate Shri Jain, from Nandura, the complainant Sau. Manda, came to be lodged by her to indulge accused in this false case" It is these observations, the applicant seeks to expunge.

(3.)Shri Anil Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that these observations are uncalled for, unwarranted and have no bearing on the case. It is really strange that the Magistrate observes that the report is drafted and lodged in conspiracy with lawyer i. e. the applicant. There is no reason for the lawyer to conspire with the client. In fact, the lawyer acts on the instructions of his client. There is nothing to warrant that the applicant had any grudge against the accused so that he would enter into conspiracy with his client to take a revenge. It appears that these observations are made at two places. The Magistrate seems to be prejudiced against the lawyer as well the complainant. A Judge is expected to maintain equanimity and not get swayed by the prejudices. The observations as made are certainly uncalled for, unwarranted and are not borne out by record and from the reasons given in the judgment delivered by the Magistrate. They, therefore, need to be expunged. Those remarks are accordingly expunged. I hope, the learned Magistrate henceforth will refrain from making such uncalled for and unwarranted remarks against any person and particularly without hearing him. The application is, therefore, allowed. Application allowed.