Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46371
1 WP-36844-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36844 of 2025
DHARMENDRA CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
"A. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ a
nature of mandamus to release 75% compensation amount out of
Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner for which he is entitled as per
clause 41 of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.
B. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances may also be awarded together with cost of the
proceedings in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 21/07/2024, they lodged an FIR
against the accused persons at Police Station Bargi District Jabalpur which
was registered at Crime No.0357/2024 for offence under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(in short 'SC/ST Act') and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was filed on 21/12/2024 before the trial Court. Petitioners belong to
Scheduled Caste category. Petitioners filed an application seeking
compensation to the respondents for which they are entitled in terms of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46371
2 WP-36844-2025
Clause 41 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short 'Rules, 1995'). The respondents have not
taken any action on the said application and the same is kept pending.
Therefore, this petition has been filed. It is contended that if the offence is
committed under the SC/ST Act, then the victim is entitled for compensation
of Rupees Two Lakhs. 25% at the time of registration of FIR, 50% at the
stage of charge-sheet and 25% after conclusion of trial by the trial Court.
Therefore, as the charge-sheet is filed before the competent trial Court,
petitioners are entitled to get 75% of compensation out of Rupees Two
Lakhs which has not been granted. Therefore, this petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions and has argued that in series of cases it is noticed that the
criminal case are filed levelling allegations, thereafter victim normally
compromises the matter or turns hostile before the Trial Court and benefit of
doubt is extended to the accused persons resulting into their acquittal in such
matters. It is contended that in terms of Clause 41 of the Rules, 1995, the
victim is entitled for grant of 25% compensation amount of Rupees Two
Lakhs at the time of registration of FIR, 50% at the time of filing of charge-
sheet and 25% on conclusion of trial by the Trial Court. It is contended that
the petitioners may be directed to furnish an affidavit before the concerning
Authorities that they will not turn hostile in the matter nor will enter into
compromise with the accused persons after receiving the amount of
compensation and in case they turn hostile or enter into compromise with the
accused, then the amount so received by them as compensation shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46371
3 WP-36844-2025
returned back to the State Authorities because the amount has been paid
from the public exchequer. The public exchequer cannot be misused for the
purposes of making compliance of relevant provision under the SC/ST Act.
It is contended that if such an affidavit is filed by the petitioners, then the
Authorities will release the amount of compensation to be paid to the
petitioners in terms of relevant clause of SC/ST Act or Rules, 1995.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record, it is not disputed that an FIR has been
registered in Crime No.357/2024 at Police Station Bargi District Jabalpur for
offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed in the matter before the competent Court. The offence registered
against the accused attracts the provisions of Clause 41 of the Rules, 1995
for which compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs is provided to the victim.
25% at the time of registration of FIR, 50% on filing of charge-sheet and
25% on conclusion of trial.
6. It is pointed out by learned State counsel that generally such FIRs are
being registered and thereafter victim entered into compromise with the
accused and turns hostile before the Trial Court after receiving compensation
amount because 75% compensation amount has to be paid up to the stage of
filing of charge-sheet. The statement of victim is recorded thereafter. The
amount to the victim in the form of compensation under the Act is to be paid
from public exchequer. The public exchequer cannot be misused for the
purpose of compliance of provisions of Rules, 1995.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46371
4 WP-36844-2025
7. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose
of this writ petition directing the petitioners to submit an affidavit to
respondents No.2 & 3 to the effect that they will not enter into compromise
with the accused or will not turn hostile before the Trial Court and will
thoroughly contest the case which has been registered on their complaint.
8. If such an affidavit is filed within a period of one month from today,
the Authorities are directed to consider the application filed by the
petitioners/victim for grant of compensation and extend the benefit in terms
of Rules, 1995 within a period of 30 days thereafter.
9. If the victim turns hostile then the amount received in the form of
compensation is required to be refunded back to the public exchequer within
a period of 30 days from the date of judgment passed by the trial Court. In
case such an amount is not refunded back, the Authorities will be at liberty to
recover the amount from the petitioners in terms of relevant provision of the
M.P.L.R.C.
10. With aforesaid observations, the petition stands finally disposed off.
No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
