Judicial restraint in adverse remarks: superior courts should avoid disparaging subordinate judges when lawful discretion is exercised.

Superior courts should exercise restraint before making disparaging remarks against subordinate judicial officers, especially where the impugned order reflects a lawful exercise of discretion under the criminal procedure. The text explains that a Magistrate may treat an application under Section 156(3) as a complaint and proceed under Section 200 after considering the police report and supporting materials, if that course is permitted by the Code. Where another view is possible, criticism should not be expressed in intemperate language, because such remarks may condemn the officer unheard and undermine judicial discipline. The stated result is that adverse strictures were expunged while the remaining directions were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether disparaging remarks made against a subordinate judicial officer while setting aside her order were justified and liable to be expunged.

Analysis: The appeal arose from criticism made by the High Court against a Judicial Magistrate who had exercised discretion to treat an application under Section 156(3) of the Code as a complaint and to proceed under Section 200. The Court noted that the Magistrate had considered the police report and the supporting materials before choosing a course expressly permitted by the Code. It held that, where a judicial officer acts within the ambit of lawful discretion and another view is merely possible, a superior court should not substitute its own preference by using intemperate or disparaging language. The Court reiterated the settled principle that remarks against subordinate judges should be made with restraint, since such observations may condemn the officer unheard and undermine judicial discipline.

Conclusion: The disparaging remarks were unjustified and were ordered to be expunged and quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of removal of the adverse strictures, while the other directions in the High Court order were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Superior courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid disparaging remarks against subordinate judicial officers when the impugned order reflects a lawful exercise of judicial discretion under the criminal procedure.

---