Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2025
1 WP-34054-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 34054 of 2024
KAMAL SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tushar Shukla - Advocate for petitioner.
Shir Ishan Soni - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
ORDER
From a perusal of the record, it is evident that there were two cases in
which the petitioner was prosecuted and in both the cases he has been
acquitted. The judgment of acquittal of one case is on record with the
petition. However, regarding the first case i.e. Crime No.187/2003, neither
judgment of acquittal is on record nor charge-sheet nor F.I.R. is on record to
see allegations against the petitioner in the said case.
2. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner flatly refuses to file such
documents and submits that since the sections of IPC are mentioned in the
impugned order, therefore, this Court should not attempt to look any further.
Therefore, the petition is taken up for hearing on basis of available material.
3. By way of present petition, the petitioner has called into question the
order Annexure P-1 dated 14.05.2024 whereby the representation of the
petitioner for reinstatement in service has been rejected. Initially, the
2 WP-34054-2024
petitioner was terminated from service vide order Annexure P-2 dated
20.01.2013.
4. It is the case of petitioner that while rejecting the application for
reinstatement vide Annexure P-1, a wrong fact has been mentioned that the
petitioner had suppressed the material information in the attestation form at
the time of appointment as Constable (GD) in CRPF. It is argued that in fact
the petitioner had duly disclosed that he has been previously prosecuted but
only the case numbers had not been mentioned in the attestation form but
there was a due disclosure that he has been previously prosecuted and
arrested. The attestation form, placed on record as Annexure R-1 is relied to
assert the said fact. It is contended that in one of the cases arising from Crime
No.187/2003, the petitioner had already been acquitted prior to appointment
and in the other case Crime No.188/2003, the petitioner was acquitted in the
year 2024 which is after termination. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner
has filed an application for reinstatement which has been rejected vide
Annexure P-1.
5. The counsel for the respondents, in turn, submits that in the initial order
Annexure P-2 this reason was not mentioned that the petitioner has
suppressed antecedents because the petitioner duly disclosed he being
prosecuted and arrested though only crime number was not mentioned. The
appeal against the order Annexure P-2 was rejected in the year 2013 itself
and the petitioner did not challenge the said matter thereafter and filed an
application for reinstatement only after getting acquittal in the second case
and, therefore, the petition also suffers from delay and laches.
3 WP-34054-2024
6. Upon hearing the rival parties it is seen that in one of the cases arising
from Crime No.188/2003, the petitioner has indeed been acquitted by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.05, Moradabad in S.T. No.319/2011.
This court is in a position to see the nature of allegations against the
petitioner in the said case. However, for any conclusive opinion in the matter
of criminal antecedents of petitioner, this Court wanted to know the nature of
allegations against the petitioner in the first case in which the petitioner has
been acquitted prior to entering in service.
7. Looking to the refusal of the counsel for petitioner to place on record
such documents, this Court is not in a position to make any conclusive
assessment of the antecedents of petitioner and to assess whether the
respondents while accepting the report of the concerned police station at the
time of appointment, have erred in law or have property acted or whether the
report of the concerned police station was proper.
8. In view of the refusal of the counsel for the petitioner to place on record
the nature of allegations against him in Crime No.187/2003, it appears that
the petitioner himself does not want any relief and has simply wasted the
time of the Court. No relief can be granted such a petition.
9. The petition fails and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
