Kunal Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5602 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 7785 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KUNAL PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI MANOJ PRAJAPATI, AGED
                           28 YEARS, NEAR MITTAL NIWAS, JAWAHAR SINGH KI
                           PAYEGA, NAI SADAK, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SOUMYA PAWAIYA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME
                                 VALLABH     BHAWAN,   BHOPAL   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                 (RADIO) BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                 (SELECTION   AND   RECRUITMENT) POLICE
                                 HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                 (TELECOMMUNICATION) PHQ BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           5.    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RADIO)
                                 PHQ BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHETNA BEHRANI Signing time: 06-04-2023 05:59:58 PM

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the refusal of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Radio Constable in M.P. Police because he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC vide Crime No. 621/2015 lodged by his sister-in-law against his brother in which the entire family was arrayed as accused which eventually stood closed due to compromise between the husband and the wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the present case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &

Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8934-8935/2022 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar set of facts had directed the respondents to appoint petitioner to the post of Constable as otherwise, he was found meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable and the exercise was directed to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate while opposing the present petition has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 as well as decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136 and contended that even if an employee is acquitted of a criminal charge, still the Department reserves the right to check the background of the said employee and can take its own decision.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that in the year 2015 sister-in-law of the petitioner

Signature Not Verified has lodged an F.I.R. under Section 498-A against her husband and her in-laws Signed by: CHETNA BEHRANI Signing time: 06-04-2023 05:59:58 PM

including the petitioner vide Crime No. 621/2015. In the meanwhile, the respondent/ Police Department had organized a Police Constable recruitment test, 2020 for which the posts were advertised on 25.11.2020 and the tests were held in the month of February, 2022. The petitioner being meritorious was selected and thereafter he was called for filling up the character verification form along with supporting affidavit wherein the petitioner truthfully disclosed about the concluded criminal case wherein he was acquitted.

It is needless to observe that from the record it reveals that the criminal case under Section 498-A registered against the present petitioner was finally compromised between the brother of the petitioner and his wife and the proceedings were quashed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2022 passed in MCRC No. 17146/2022 and consequently, the trial Court proceedings were closed vide order dated 28.05.2022 but despite of having successfully acquitted of all the milestones, the petitioner was refused appointment by the respondents vide order dated 17.03.2023 only on the basis that he was arrayed as an accused in a case under Section 498-A.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar (supra) in the similar facts after considering the case of Avtar Singh (supra), had concluded that since the offence for which the petitioner herein was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal, which had arisen out of a matrimonial dispute

which ultimately resulted in settlement out of the Court, under such circumstances and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant herein could not have been denied appointment solely on the ground that he was tried for an offence under Section 498-A of IPC and that too for an offence which happened in the year 2002 for which he was acquitted in the year Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHETNA BEHRANI Signing time: 06-04-2023 05:59:58 PM

2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife) and ultimately the respondents were directed to appoint the appellant therein to the post of Constable.

Similar is the case of the petitioner herein. Charges of 498-A were levelled by his sister-in-law in the year 2015 mainly against the brother of the petitioner and other family members were also roped in and later on, the matter got compromised between the brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner in the year 2022 and on the basis of the compromise the proceedings were dropped. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner did not face any prosecution for the alleged offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of the IPC. Thus, this Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Singh Kirar (supra). For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner was disqualified for his appointment in the police service is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case afresh of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Singh Kirar (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. E-copy/certified copy as per Rules and directions.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chetna

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHETNA BEHRANI Signing time: 06-04-2023 05:59:58 PM