Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amir Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29479
1 WA-3122-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 3122 of 2025
AMIR ALI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar (Senior Advocate)/ AAG along with Shri Ravindra Dixit -
Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1 . The instant appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the
appellant (petitioner therein), being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by
the learned Writ Court in W.P. No.16129/2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by
the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated, the facts of the case are that appellant participated in Police
Constable Recruitment process in the year 2020 and was successful in written test as
well as physical examination in O.B.C. Category. Thereafter, he submitted an
Attestation Form on 25.11.2022 wherein he disclosed information regarding
registration of a Criminal Case (FIR vide Crime No.690 of 2014) registered against
him at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 294, 34 of IPC. On the basis of said case, matter was placed before the
Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 24.05.2023. The Committee did not find the
appellant suitable for appointment, looking to his involvement in the said case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29479
2 WA-3122-2025
Consequently, vide impugned order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), appellant was
informed about cancellation of his candidature. Challenging the same, the appellant
filed a writ petition which was dismissed vide impugned order, therefore, this writ
appeal is preferred.
3 . It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that this was a case
wherein acquittal was recorded in favour of appellant. A firearm was wielded by his
father, and the appellant accompanied him. During the trial, complainant did not
support the prosecution story and was declared hostile, therefore, matter ended in
acquittal. Once acquittal was recorded, it was a clean acquittal and therefore,
Committee erred in reaching to the conclusion about the rejection of candidature of
appellant. He relied upon judgments passed by Apex Court in the cases of Avtar Singh
vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi &
another Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and State of M.P. & others Vs.
Parvez Khan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591. He further placed reliance upon a recent
judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Bhupendra Yadav reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1181.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal on the ground that the case
falls under "moral turpitude". The allegations are serious in nature because the
appellant accompanied his father when his father was wielding a firearm, and due to
the said firearm, complainant sustained injuries on his right eye. Empty cartridges were
recovered from the spot. However, since the complainant did not support the
prosecution story and was declared hostile, acquittal was recorded in favour of
appellant. It is not a clean acquittal, and the ingredients of "moral turpitude" still exist.
After considering the fact-situation, the Scrutiny Committee rightly came to the
conclusion about rejection of candidature of appellant. Learned counsel for the State
also supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29479
3 WA-3122-2025
6. After considering the rival submissions and examining the factual details of
criminal case registered against the appellant, which resulted in acquittal, it appears
that the allegations against the appellant were serious in nature, as the offence under
Section 307 IPC was involved. Technically, since the witnesses turned hostile,
acquittal was recorded, but the nature of the allegations was such that the Scrutiny
Committee was persuaded to take the decision accordingly. Offence under Section 307
of IPC falls under the category of Moral Turpitude.
7. In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Apex Court has given guidelines in
following manner:-
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as
far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal
or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service
must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature
for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of
the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal
case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any
of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as
shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have
rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion,
ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude
or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean
acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the
continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29479
4 WA-3122-2025
criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form
regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending
cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may
pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment
of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of
filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would
take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry
would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the
ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification
form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot
be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was
not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.''
8. Upon going through the order passed by the learned Writ Court, it appears that
after appreciating the factual details as well as the legal position, the Writ Court
reached a conclusion which is just and proper and warrants no interference.
Resultantly, appeal sans merit, is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*VJ*
