Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
1 WP-23767-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23767 of 2023
MANOJ SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order, dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby the
respondent no.4 cancelled his candidature for appointment on the post of
Constable as he has been found unsuitable for the said post by the Screening
Committee.
[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
participated in the process of recruitment on the post of Constable under
O.B.C. Category in the year 2020. He was declared passed in written test as
also in physical examination. Thereafter, he submitted his attestation form
wherein he disclosed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case for
offences under Section 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and also disclosed
that he has been acquitted vide judgment, dated 26.10.2016, passed in S.T.
No. 125 of 2015. A copy of judgment of acquittal is placed on record as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
2 WP-23767-2023
Annexure P/3.
[3]. The matter was then placed before the Screening Committee on
21.08.2023 (Annexure R/1). The Screening Committee found him unsuitable
for the post on account of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case.
Consequently, the respondent no.4 passed the impugned order thereby
declaring the petitioner as unsuitable for appointment, that is how, the
petitioner is before this Court.
[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents
have failed to appreciate the judgment of acquittal passed in the Criminal
Case inasmuch as the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial Court
under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.. He submitted that the respondents have failed
to take into account various judgments passed by this Court as also by Apex
Court while rejecting the petitioner's candidature. Learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and
others (W.A. No.1954/2019), Vijay Paras Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.A.
No. 249/2021) a n d Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.A.
No.55/2023). Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment passed
by Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors reported
in (2016) 8 SCC 471 to say that the decision taken by the respondents suffers
from non-application of mind.
[5]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner was not honourably
acquitted in the criminal case and his acquittal was on account of turning all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
3 WP-23767-2023
witnesses hostile. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Yadav reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1181 .
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner was
involved in criminal case for offence under Section 435 read with Section 34
of IPC and such an offence falls under the category of moral turpitude as per
the Circular, dated 24.07.2018. It is his submission that the Police force is a
disciplined force and the members of such force shoulders great
responsibility of maintaining law and order in society. The people of society
repose faith and confidence in the members of Police force and, therefore, a
candidate who wish to join the Police force must be a person of utmost
rectitude, must have unimpeccable character and integrity. It is his
submission that the persons like petitioner who have criminal antecedents,
are not suitable for appointment on the post of Constable. He, therefore,
prays for dismissal of writ petition.
[6]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[7]. The petitioner was admittedly acquitted in the criminal case vide
judgment, dated 26.10.2016, under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, before
adverting to the merits of this case, it is profitable to examine certain
provisions of Cr.P.C. so as to understand the nature of acquittal under
Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
[8]. Section 228 of CrPC, starts with framing of charge whereafter the
plea of the accused is recorded and when the accused pleads innocence then
evidence is produced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
4 WP-23767-2023
and charges are framed. Witnesses so produced by the prosecution are
subject to examination-in-chief, cross-examination and further examination.
Thereafter before the defence is called upon to adduce evidence, learned
Trial Court has to decide as to whether on the face of prosecution evidence,
defence is required to be called upon. This is required under Section 232 of
CrPC. If the prosecution evidence recorded under Section 231 of CrPC is
found insufficient to give an impression that the accused has committed
offence alleged against him, the Trial Court has to acquit the accused under
Section 232 of CrPC. Thus, such an acquittal is invariably and
unquestionably a clean/honourable acquittal with no element of benefit of
doubt.
[9]. In the instant case also, the Trial Court has acquitted the petitioner
by exercising the powers under Section 232 of CrPC vide judgment dated
26.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 125/2015.
[10]. This Court at more than one occasion has considered the effect of
acquittal of a candidate under Section 232 of CrPC. In the case of Monu
Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in Para 9 held as under:-
"9. If the authorities are swayed by the thought of mere
registration of offence or mere conduct of the trial or
acquittal or clean acquittal or otherwise then they may be
ignoring the 'LIFE' into that 'FILE because each 'FILE' has its
own 'LIFE'. Here in the present case, appellant faced trial in
two cases. One is Crime No.292/2014 for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294 & 34 of IPC in
which acquittal was recorded by the trial Court at the stage of
Section 232 of Cr.P.C. which means after prosecution
evidence has been led, the trial Court found no case made out
against the petitioner to move further in the trial for defence
evidence. Case was dismissed and acquittal was recorded
then and there only. Therefore, it was infact a false case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
5 WP-23767-2023
registered against the petitioner or prosecution could not
prove its case for further trial with scanty evidence. Another
case vide Crime No.390/2015 for the offence under Sections
294, 336, 341, 427 and 506-B of IPC but the said case
resulted into acquittal because none of the prosecution
witness supported the prosecution case and infact there was
no evidence against the petitioner, therefore, he was
acquitted. Both these proceedings indicate that false cases
have been registered against the petitioner. When petitioner
came out acquitted and his innocence stood vindicated then it
cannot be too harsh for the department to take such pedantic
and hyper-technical view. Neither the impugned order dated
10-04-2019 passed by the 13th Battalion, SAF, Gwalior
discloses any specific reason nor it appears that the whole
file/ documents were verified. This Court in W.A.
No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and
Others) decided on 01-05-2020 discussed this aspect in detail
and has considered impact of acquittal under Section 232 of
Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said order, detail
discussion was made about various contours of the subject
matter. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the
case, petitioner deserves re-consideration by the concerned
authority and therefore, petition deserves to be allowed."
[11]. Similarly, in the case of Vijay Paras (supra) , the Division Bench
of this Court in Para 7 held as under:-
"7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the considered view that the learned Single Judge has fallen
in error while justifying the impugned order as we find
substantial force in the submissions of Shri Prashant Sharma,
learned counsel for the appellant while he criticized the
impugned order for both the reasons as elaborated in
preceding paras. We conclude that regard being had to the
nature of the order passed by the trial court under Section
232 of Cr.P.C, it was a case of clean acquittal, whereunder
the appellant was acquitted of charges for want of sufficient
evidence on record. As such, there was no need of elaborate
trial. Besides, the justification of the impugned order as
contained in para 4 of the impugned order dt.28.09.2019 is
found to be factually incorrect for want of any such case
registered or tried against the appellant at any point of time."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
6 WP-23767-2023
[12]. Thus, it has been consistent view of this Court that the acquittal
of a person under Section 232 of CrPC stands on a better footing than the
acquittal after full trial.
[13]. Now the question arises as to what is the role and responsibility
of employer in such cases ? The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Devendra Singh Gurjar (supra) in para 10 held as under:-
"10. In the background of above discussion, it is always
appropriate and safe to consider certain other facts before
concluding as to whether an ultimate acquittal rendered is
clean/honourable or not. This Court in one of its earlier
decisions had an occasion to dwell upon some of the relevant
factors which ought to be taken into account by the
appointing authority as guiding principles to ascertain the
true nature of acquittal (clean/honourable or not). The
relevant extract of the said judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed
in W.A. No.7/2020 is reproduced below for ready reference
and convenience:-
"12. Thus what comes out loud and clear from the
above discussion is that appointing authority while
assessing suitability of a candidate to enter public
employment has a heavy responsibility of considering
lot many factors. Mere registration of offence which
according to the appointing authority involves moral
turpitude especially when the Court of competent
jurisdiction has not pronounced judgment on merits, is
not per se good enough to declare a candidate unfit for
public employment.
1 2 . 1 Employer in discharge of this onerous
responsibility is required to inter alia consider following
factors:-
(i) The nature of allegations;
(ii) Overt act alleged against candidate;
(iii) Whether the allegations are solely against
individual candidate or have been alleged with the aid
of section 34/149 of IPC
(iv) The criminal antecedents of the candidate;
(v) Overall reputation of the candidate in his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
7 WP-23767-2023
locality/society etc.
13. The aforesaid factors are illustrative and not exhaustive.
There can be other relevant factors which the Competent
Authority can consider. The concern of this Court is that it is
seen time and again that the appointing authorities are not
discharging this onerous duty while considering candidature
of persons seeking public employment. The appointing
authority often adopts cursory and perfunctory approach. The
appointing authority ought to remember that it is dealing with
prospects of employment of a citizen of the country, which if
not dealt with appropriately in accordance with the rule of
law, can jeopardize the entire future of a candidate and render
her/him demoralized."
[14]. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, if the impugned
order, dated 21.08.2023, is seen, it is gathered that the Screening
Committee/Appointing Authority has not discharged its responsibility as
described in Para 12.1 of Devendra Singh Gurjar (supra).
[15]. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and
others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 . In the
case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) , the facts were that the persons concerned
were acquitted on account of compromise between the parties. The
Screening Committee recorded that it is not an honourable acquittal. The
Apex Court in facts of said case held that while considering the candidature
of a candidate for appointment on civil post, the employer is entitled to look
into the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The said legal
proposition is not in dispute. However, the competent authority is required to
appreciate the facts obtaining in each case independently.
[16]. In the impugned order, the authorities have referred to Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
8 WP-23767-2023
Court judgment rendered in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr.
Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 . In that case, Apex Court in
Para 23 held as under:-
"23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that
the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons
involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police
force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that
the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not
honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its
rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that
the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of
the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses
turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the
Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the
acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar
activities in future with more strength and vigour, if
appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening
Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of
such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of
becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation
rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed
by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this
Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons
with impeccable character enter the police force."
[ 1 7 ] . Thus, as per Mehar Singh judgment also, the Screening
Committee is required to consider the matter in detail and involvement of a
candidate in criminal case would not ipso facto disqualify him from being
appointed on post.
[18]. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is apparent that the
respondents were required to meticulously examine the facts of the criminal
case particularly the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner,
overt act alleged against the petitioner, whether the allegations were solely
against the petitioner or have been alleged with the add of Section 34 of IPC,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16453
9 WP-23767-2023
whether the petitioner has any other criminal antecedents and over all
reputation of the petitioner in his locality/society. The nature and effect of
petitioner's acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is also required to be
examined. From the order passed by the respondent no.4 as also the
recommendation made by Screening Committee on 21.08.2023, it is evident
that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner's candidature
keeping in view the aforesaid aspects. The respondent no.4 has only stated in
the order about the allegations made against the petitioner in the criminal
case. Thereafter, he has only referred to certain judgments passed by the
Apex Court and has ultimately held petitioner unsuitable for appointment.
This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the respondent-
authorities have failed to discharge their burden while considering the
petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of constable keeping in
view the guidelines issued by this Court as also by the Apex Court.
[19]. Consequently, order, dated 28.08.2023, (Annexure P/1) is set-
aside. The matter is remitted to respondent no.4/Screening Committee to
reconsider the same keeping in view the legal position as enumerated herein-
before.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
