Madhya Pradesh High Court
Makhan Singh Karcho vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
1
WP No. 3345-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3345 of 2018
MAKHAN SINGH KARCHO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
By way of present petition the petitioner has put to challenge the
order Annexure P-15 dated 06.01.2018 whereby the Superintendent of
Police, District Balaghat has communicated to the petitioner that the
petitioner cannot be appointed despite being acquitted in criminal case
because his acquittal has been found to be an acquittal based upon
compromise or benefit of doubt and therefore, the petitioner is not found
entitled to be appointed as a member of Police Force.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner
appeared in the selection test on the post of Subedar (Stenographer) in
Police Force and he was declared selected for the said post in the written
WP No. 3345-2018
test and further stage was verification of documents and physical
measurements. However, the petitioner had been asked to submit character
verification form and in the character verification form, placed on record as
Annexure P-5, the petitioner had truthfully disclosed he being involved in a
criminal case and had further disclosed that he has been acquitted vide
judgment dated 19.11.2006 by the District and Sessions Court, Durg
(Chhattisgarh). However, the respondents considered the character
antecedents of the petitioner in a negative manner and have found that the
acquittal of the petitioner is not a clean and honourable acquittal and
therefore, rejected his case for being reinstated.
3. It is argued that it was a case of disclosure of past acquittal in
criminal case out of which though Section 307 IPC amounted to an offence
of moral turpitude but since there is clear and clean acquittal, therefore the
respondents could not have put cloud on the acquittal of petitioner as
criminal law does not distinguish between clean or doubtful acquittal.
4. It is also argued that the acquittal of the petitioner cannot be said to
be a technical acquittal because it was not on account of compromise
between the parties but after facing trial.
5. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was
allegation of fight between two groups of students residing in Government
Polytechnic College in hostel. It was a case of fight between hostellers at a
very young age of around 18 to 20 years. The injured persons as well as the
accused persons were all hostellers between the age of 18 to 20 years and it
was not a case where there was any allegation against the petitioner of
committing the crime in a manner in which he can be stated to be a person
of moral turpitude. It is argued that it was a case of fight between two
WP No. 3345-2018
groups of students in college and in such case a more lenient and pragmatic
approach needs to be taken so that such college fights do not translate to
life-long disqualifications. The Counsel for the petitioner has also argued
that though the petitioner has been selected in police force, but is not
selected in executive branch with policing duties, but has been selected as a
Stenographer which is a ministerial post.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the acquittal
of the petitioner is not a clean and clear acquittal. It is a case where some of
the witnesses turned hostile and some did not turn up. There were such
injuries on one of the injured students that a case under Section 307 IPC
was registered. As that student did not turn up to give evidence, therefore
on that ground and on other grounds, the petitioner and other accused
persons were acquitted and it amounts to technical acquittal. Therefore, it is
argued that the petitioner cannot as of right seek appointment in Police
Force.
7. Heard.
8. The case in which the petitioner was involved and he was acquitted
vide Annexure P-4, which is judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Court, it
is evident from the perusal of the said judgment, that it was a case of fight
between groups of students in Polytechnic College who were residing in
the hostel of the college. The injured persons as well as the accused persons
were students of the Polytechnic College and were hostellers. The trial
Court after due marshalling of evidence has held that the offence is not
proved. It is very relevant to mention here that the accused student on
whom the injuries were of such nature that Section 307 IPC was charged
against the accused persons, did not turn up to give evidence before the
WP No. 3345-2018
Sessions Court and it cannot be inferred by this Court that the acquittal of
petitioner is on account of the witness turning hostile. The petitioner was
charged under Section 307, 427, 323 and 34 IPC out of which only Section
307 amounts to offence under moral turpitude as per the Circular dated 05-
07-2003 and 24-07-2018 issued by the Department of Home, Government
of Madhya Pradesh, which is not disputed by the Counsel for the State.
9. The word 'honourable acquittal' is nowhere defined in Code of
criminal procedure under which the petitioner faced trial. In the criminal
case, there may be findings reflecting character and there may be some
material available in the case though the ultimate outcome might have
resulted in acquittal and that material available in the case may lead the
employer to form an opinion whether to appoint the person in service
despite he being acquitted. The matter has to be enquired into by the Court
that whether findings disclosed in the criminal investigation are having
ramification on the character of the person seeking employment. The
Government may not look at the final outcome which may have resulted
into acquittal. that may be on technical ground but the Government has to
look into as to whether the materials available reflect upon the character
and antecedents of the person. If the materials including allegations as such
do not disclose anything tainted as to the character of the candidate, then
the Government cannot hold the character as tainted or disqualify him from
seeking employment. Mere registration of criminal case and facing of trial
will not enable the Government to disqualify such a person from becoming
a member of service. This has been held by a Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court in OP(KAT) No. 267 of 2021 (State of Kerala versus Durgadas
and Others.).
WP No. 3345-2018
10. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are not of
any hooliganism or being a nuisance element to the society at large. It was
the case of fight between two groups of students of the same college and
the petitioner was one of the seven students who were charged with
assaulting two students who were injured students. All the accused persons
were aged between 18 to 20 years on the date of incident and it was the
case where allegation was of fight between two groups of hostellers of a
college.
11. The incident having taken place somewhere in the year 2002 when
the persons were around 18 to 20 years old, how that can disqualify the said
person to seek employment on a ministerial post in Police Force 10 to 12
years later, is something which has totally lost the attention of the authority
who has held the petitioner disqualified to seek employment which is
mechanically on the ground that since some of the witnesses did not turn up
for evidence, therefore it cannot be said to be clean acquittal.
12. The injured student did not come up in the trial which might have
been for the reason that all the injured and accused persons were hostellers
and by the time the case was put to trial, the student might have passed out
and shifted to some other place and might have entered employment and
might have lost interest to prosecute the case, or it could have been a case
of he getting injured in some other manner and then making the allegation
against some students of the college of rival group.
13. From a perusal of the judgment of acquittal, this Court is unable to find
any specific role assigned to the petitioner in the said prosecution story nor
any seizure has taken place from the present applicant though seizures of
WP No. 3345-2018
hockey sticks and iron rods etc. were from the other co-accused students of
the hostel.
14. In the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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
WP No. 3345-2018
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 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.
The Supreme Court has held that if acquittal had already been
recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
WP No. 3345-2018
nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit
of reasonable doubt has been given, then the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the employee. It was further held that
even if the employee had made declaration truthfully of concluded criminal
case, then also employer still has right to consider the antecedents.
15. Thereafter, in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others
Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others 2018 (1) SCC 797, the Supreme Court held
that even though acquittal is based on compromise, it is open to screening
committee to examine the suitability of the candidate and take appropriate
decision. The Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgment in the
case of Mehar Singh (2013 (7) SCC 685) wherein it has held that the
Police Force is a disciplined Force and compromise and settlement are
encouraged to bring about peaceful and amicable atmosphere in the society
and they have to be encouraged also to reduce the arrears of cases but these
considerations cannot be brought in the cases of public employment in
order to maintain integrity and high standard of the Police Force.
16. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Lovkush Meena reported in
AIR 2021 SC 1610, the supreme Court has held as under:-
"16. In a similar factual scenario to the extent of recruitment to
the posts of Subedars, Platoon Commandants and Inspectors of
Police in pursuance to an advertisement and disqualification of
one of the candidates being assailed resulted in a judgment of
this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Abhijit Singh
Pawar4 by a two Judge Bench. Suffice to say, in the factual
context, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the
date when affidavit was tendered and within four days the
compromise was entered into between the original complainant
and the respondent. An application for compounding was filed.
The compounding was found to be permissible as it dealt with
WP No. 3345-2018
offences under Sections 294,325/34,323,506 Part II of the IPC
and on discussion of the legal principle enunciated in the earlier
judgments, it was opined that the earlier judgment in the case of
Commissioner of Police v Mehar Singh5 it was opined that there
is no doubt about the proposition that even after the disclosure is
made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his
rights to consider the antecedent and suitability of the candidate.
In this context, it was held, the employer is entitled to 4(2018) 18
SCC 733 5(2013) 7 SCC 685 take into account the job profile for
which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charge
levelled against the candidate and whether acquittal in question
was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of
benefit of doubt as a result of composition. We may also add that
one aspect which was noticed which is common with the present
case is the absence of any suggestion that the decision was
actuated by malafide or suffered on other accounts except the
issue raised of the subsequent circular applicable. "
17. In Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
reported in 2023 (1) SCC 423, the Supreme Court considered the case of a
contender for public employment arising from matrimonial dispute under
Section 498-A of IPC and held that the offence for which the contender was
tried ultimately resulted in acquittal on account of settlement out of court.
In such case the appellant could not have been denied the appointment on
the ground of the prosecution of the year 2006 when his candidature was
being considered in the year 2013/2014.
18. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & another 2023(12)
SCC 317, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the
criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post
submission of the application form. We have also taken into
account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case
and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral
turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean
acquittal. As is clear from para 38 in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v.
Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] ,
all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of
WP No. 3345-2018
flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be
exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and
circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type
of lapse. "
In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has considered the position
that though the authorities are at liberty and have a discretion to consider
the candidature of the candidate but that discretion must be exercised with
care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
consideration including the nature and type of lapse of the
employee/applicant for employment.
19. If the respondents were not satisfied with the acquittal of the
petitioner, then also nothing is mentioned that how they disbelieved the
acquittal of the petitioner not to be a clean and honorable acquittal and
what is the material available with the respondents to believe that the
prosecution against the petitioner was true and correct so as to assess the
character antecedents of the petitioner in a negative manner. No enquiry
was conducted by the respondents to arrive at such a conclusion that what
is the character of the petitioner on account of which he cannot be given the
benefit of acquittal and that what is the material available with the
respondents to believe that the allegation against the petitioner was truthful.
20. In the present case, it is clear that the respondents have dealt with the
case of the petitioner with a mind that as if allegations against the petitioner
was proved or that he has won over and threatened the complainant and
witnesses to bring about his acquittal. There is no material available with the
respondents to reach to the conclusion that whether acquittal on account of
any attempt made by the petitioner to bring about his acquittal in reaching to
the witnesses and the complainants.
WP No. 3345-2018
21. In State v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as follows:-
"28. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the
suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent
evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or
illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a
candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision
suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of
determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This
was emphasised by this Court in M.V.
Thimmaiah v. UPSC [M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC
119 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 409] which held as follows : (SCC pp.
131, 135-36, paras 21 & 30)
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the
selection of the candidates. Normally, the
recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot
be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or
serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts
cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the
recommendations of the Selection Committee like the
court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the
Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a
court of appeal to examine the selection of the
candidates nor is the business of the court to examine
each candidate and record its opinion. ...
***
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit
as an appellate authority to call for the personal
records and constitute Selection Committee to
undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the
Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the
assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject
to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts.
One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for
making their assessment and it is not subject to
appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the
candidates, one may be held to be very good and
another may be held to be good. If this type of
interference is permitted then it would virtually
amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have
WP No. 3345-2018
started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an
appellate authority over the selection."
31. Public service -- like any other, presupposes that the State
employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should
enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential
aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of
attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute
eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant
aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the
Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair
and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory
manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy
or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the
process of decision-making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in
bona fides.
32. The High Court's approach, evident from its observations
about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the
general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or
misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that
such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age
of the youth and the rural setting. This Court is of opinion that
such generalisations, leading to condonation of the offender's
conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be
avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or
trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt,
(with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings,
can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour.
Each case is to be scrutinised by the public employer concerned,
through its designated officials--more so, in the case of
recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to
maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to
inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security."
22. In Joginder Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, (2015) 2 SCC 377 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"24. However, in the present case, we have observed that the
appellant was involved in a family feud and the FIR came to be
lodged against him on 14-4-1998, after he had applied for the
WP No. 3345-2018
post of Constable. Further, he had been acquitted on 4-10-1999
i.e. much before he was called for the interview/medical
examination/written test. Further, as per Rule 12.18, emphasis
has been laid on the freedom or otherwise from conviction. An
interpretation of the Rules referred to supra clearly indicate that
an acquittal in a criminal case will qualify him for appointment
to the post of Police Constable, as the appellant had successfully
qualified the other requisites required for his selection. Thus, as
rightly pointed out by the trial court that as the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges against the appellant by adducing
cogent evidence, therefore, the police authorities cannot be
allowed to sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the
Sessions Court in its judgment, wherein the appellant has been
honourably acquitted. Denying him the appointment to the post
of a Constable is like a vicarious punishment, which is not
permissible in law, therefore, the impugned judgment and order
[UT, Chandigarh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2008) 2
PLR 565] passed by the High Court is vitiated in law and liable
to be set aside.
25. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this
criminal case in which he has been honourably acquitted, there
is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents or
the conduct of the appellant was not up to the mark to appoint
him to the post. The appellant was also among the list of the 40
selected successful candidates, who had fulfilled all the other
requirements of the post. Reliance has been placed on the
decision of this Court in Jagtar Singh v. CBI [1993 Supp (3)
SCC 49 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 922 : (1993) 25 ATC 81] which states
as under : (SCC pp. 50-51, para 4)
"4. ... It is not necessary for us to go into the
question as to whether the claim of privilege by the
respondents is justified or not. We also do not wish to
go into the details of the investigations made
regarding the antecedents and character of the
appellant. We have carefully examined the material
on the basis of which the respondents have come to
the conclusion that the appellant is not suitable for
appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor
in the Central Bureau of Investigation and we are of
the view that the respondents are not justified in
reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. No
reasonable person, on the basis of the material placed
before us, can come to the conclusion that the
WP No. 3345-2018
appellant's antecedents and character are such that
he is unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior Public
Prosecutor. There has been total lack of application
of mind on the part of the respondents. Only on the
basis of surmises and conjectures arising out of a
single incident which happened in the year 1983 it
has been concluded that the appellant is not a
desirable person to be appointed to government
service. We are of the view that the appellant has
been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to
the post to which he was selected and recommended
by the Union Public Service Commission."
26. Thus, we are of the opinion that the alleged past conduct of
the appellant in relation to the criminal case will not debar or
disqualify him for the post of the Constable for which he was
successfully selected after qualifying the written test, medical
test and the interview conducted by the selection authority.
Further, as stated by us earlier, there has been no concealment of
any relevant fact from the respondents by the appellant. The
respondents were thus not justified in denying the said post to the
appellant. The conclusion arrived at by them is not cogent and
lacks proper application of mind.
28. Since we have upheld the judgment and order of CAT, the
respondents are directed to comply with the same by issuing
appointment letter to the appellant within four weeks from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order
as to costs."
23. The petitioner was a hostel student and there was no seizure from the
petitioner, nor any overt act was assigned to the petitioner in the prosecution
story as contained in the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, possibility cannot
be ruled out that he petitioner might have been roped in only on account of he
being one of the hostellers and associated with one group of students. It was
not open for the police authorities to sit in judgment over the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court.
24. So far as the vehement argument made by learned counsel for the State
that it is a case of appointment in Police Force which is a uniformed and
WP No. 3345-2018
disciplined force and the person is required to do policing duty and should be
of a particular character is concerned, the said arguments are very impressive
in the first flush. However, the petitioner has been selected to a ministerial
post in the Police Force and therefore such arguments made by learned
counsel for the State are utterly misconceived and are not relevant to the
present case.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the rejection of candidature of petitioner by the respondents is
bad in law. The impugned order and all the orders adverse to the petitioner are
set aside. The respondents are directed to give effect to result of the petitioner
and if any person successful in the written test having lower merit in the
category of the petitioner has been given appointment then petitioner be also
given appointment on the post of Subedar (Stenographer). The petitioner shall
be entitled to notional seniority from the date of appointment of such other
person who may have been appointed having merit immediately lower than
the petitioner in the same category, but without any claim for backwages.
26. In the aforesaid terms, the petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
