Vinod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 17042 MP

                                1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 21st OF DECEMBER, 2022

              WRIT PETITION NO.29555 OF 2022

BETWEEN:-

VINOD S/O SHRI MOHAN JU AHIRWAR, AGED
ABOUT      27     YEARS,    OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE FULARA, P.S.
CHIRULA,    DISTRICT   DATIA   (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                ........PETITIONER

(BY SHRI J.P. KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      OF HOME DEPARTMENT, BALLABH
      BHAWAN, BHOPAL.

2.    THE SUPERINTENDENT      OF     POLICE,
      DISTRICT DATIA

3.    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARKSHI
      KENDRA SINAWAL, DISTRICT DATIA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SHRI MANOJ JHA, THEN STATION HOUSE
      OFFICER, ARKSHI KENDRA SINAWAL,
      DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    SHRI LAKHAN SINGH PARMAR (ASI),
      THEN ASI IN ARKSHI KENDRA SINAWAL,
      DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      C/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
      DISTRICT DATIA

                                               ........RESPONDENTS
                                            2



(SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to pay compensation to the petitioenr for his illegal custody and falsely implication with the offence as was registered at Crime No.15/2012, U/S Sec 302, 307, 34 IPC and has to face ST No.10/2013 since 24-04-2013 to 16-06-2022 where he has to face illegal custody since 19-12-2012 to 18-05- 2015 on account of respondent No. 3 to 5 as they have discharge their duty as Public Servant and they are State within a definition of State. It is further submitted that the earring officer (respondent No. 4 and 5) may kindly be prosecuted for their illegal act, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was maliciously prosecuted and ultimately he has been acquitted on the ground that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Accordingly, he is entitled for compensation for malicious prosecution.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Civil Court for compensation by reason of malicious prosecution. It is further submitted that the facts and circumstances of

the case are to be considered on individual basis.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was maliciously prosecuted and, accordingly, he has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Civil Court for seeking compensation. Furthermore, the amount of compensation is to be decided on the basis of status of the parties, coupled with the fact that whether the petitioner was maliciously prosecuted or not or whether he was given the benefit of doubt or whether the judgment of acquittal is under challenge or not are some questions which are to be decided by the Trial Court after recording of evidence.

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Abhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Date: 2022.12.21 17:32:10 +05'30'