Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohani @ Vandana Paraste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46910
1 WP-36974-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36974 of 2025
ROHANI @ VANDANA PARASTE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for 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 petitioner that on 06.03.2023, she lodged an FIR
against the accused persons at Police Station Sihora, Jabalpur which was
registered at Crime No.0159/2023 for an offence under Sections 294, 427,
295-A, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under 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 20.01.2025 before the
trial Court. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Petitioner filed
an application seeking compensation to the respondents for which she is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46910
2 WP-36974-2025
entitled in terms of 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, petitioner is 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 petitioner may be directed to furnish an affidavit before the concerning
Authorities that she 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 she turns hostile or enter into compromise with the
accused, then the amount so received by her as compensation shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46910
3 WP-36974-2025
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 petitioner, then the
Authorities will release the amount of compensation to be paid to the
petitioner 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 against the
accused persons at Police Station Sihora, Jabalpur which was registered at
Crime No.0159/2023 for an offence under Sections 294, 427, 295-A, 506
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
& 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46910
4 WP-36974-2025
from public exchequer. The public exchequer cannot be misused for the
purpose of compliance of provisions of Rules, 1995.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose
of this writ petition directing the petitioner to submit an affidavit to
respondents No.2 & 3 to the effect that she 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 her 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
petitioner/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 petitioner in terms of relevant provision of the
M.P.L.R.C.
10. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed
off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
