SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Prakhar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
(2.) This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that in the judgment dated 19.04.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 434 of 2005, the portion which are adverse and prejudicial to applicant, be expunged.
(3.) It is submitted that applicant was not a party in proceedings and, therefore, adverse remarks should be expunged. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703, para 10, which reads as under: "10. The second point for consideration is this, has the High Court inherent power to expunge remarks made by itself or by a lower court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice? There was at one time some conflict of judicial opinion on this question. The position as to case-law now seems to be that except for a somewhat restricted view taken by the Bombay High Court, the other High Courts have taken the view that though the jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and is to be exercised in most exceptional cases only, it is undoubtedly open to the High Court to expunge remarks from a judgment in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court (see Emperor v. Ch. Mohd. Hassan; State v. Chhotay Lal; Lalit Kumar v. S. S. Bose; S.Lal Singh v. State; Ram Sagar Singh v. Chandrika Singh; and In re Ramaswami). The view taken in the Bombay High Court is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to expunge passages from the judgment of an inferior court which has not been brought before it in regular appeal or revision; but an application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. is maintainable and in a proper case the High Court has inherent jurisdiction, even though no appeal or revision is preferred to it, to correct judicially the observations made by pointing out that they were not justified, or were without foundation, or were wholly wrong or improper (see State v. Nilkanth Shripad Bhave). In State of U. P. v. J. N. Bagga, this court made an order expunging certain remarks made against the State Government by a learned Judge of the High Court of Allahabad. The order was made in an appeal brought to this court from the appellate judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court. In State of U. P. v. Ibrar Hussain, this Court observed that it was not necessary to make certain remarks which the High Court made in its judgment. Here again the observation was made in an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court. We think that the view taken in the High Courts other than the High Court of Bombay is correct and the High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only. In fairness to learned counsel for the appellants we may state here that he has submitted before us that the State Government will be satisfied if we either expunge the remarks or hold them to be wholly unwarranted on the facts of the case. He has submitted that the real purpose of the appeal is to remove the stigma which has been put on the police force of the entire State by those remarks the truth of which it had no opportunity to challenge." (emphasis added) ;