Telangana High Court

M. Kamalakar vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 13 February, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

            WRIT PETITION No. 40400 OF 2018
                         AND
             WRIT PETITION No. 880 OF 2020

COMMON ORDER:

Petitioner claims to be a member of Backward class

community and having fully eligible and qualified, made an

Application for the post of SCT SI/RSI pursuant to the

notification dated 03.11.2011. He participated in the selection

process and provisionally, got selected to the said post with

Registration No. 713017, but however, the selection was

cancelled vide memo dated 26.11.2014 on the ground that he

involved in criminal cases i.e. Crime No. 77 of 2004 and 23 of

2001, which, according to him, were falsely lodged when he was

at the age of 17 and 21 respectively due to political and village

rivalry. It is stated, during the pendency of Crime No. 23 of

2001, as precautionary method, the RDO, Mahabubabad bound

over both the groups for keeping peace and good behaviour in

2001 vide Crime No. 33 of 2001 under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

when petitioner was minor. Thereafter, petitioner's father

lodged a complaint vide Crime No. 76 of 2004 under Section

379 IPC against some individuals, who, in turn, as a counter-

blast lodged a fake complaint registered as Crime No. 77 of 2004

under Section 379 IPC involving petitioner and his father. It is

further stated that petitioner was acquitted in both the cases

referred to in cancellation order, in 2005 and 2007 respectively

i.e. before the issuance of recruitment notification and he is no

way concerned with the above offences as his name was falsely

implicated only boring grudge against his family.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Ravichandran

submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi (Civil Appeal No. 9109 of

2019) considering the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India

(2016) 8 SCC 471), held that Clause (xiv) of Section 3 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2015

lays down guidelines for the Central and the State Governments

stating that all past records of any child under the Juvenile

Justice System should be erased except in special

circumstances. He therefore, contended that without giving

reasonable opportunity to explain the above, petitioner's

provisional selection was cancelled. The said cancellation was

questioned in O.A.No. 7338 of 2014 which was dismissed on

08.10.2015 by the Tribunal. Challenging the same, petitioner

filed Writ Petition No. 37322 of 2015, while disposing of the

same, vide order dated 16.04.2008, the Board was directed to

consider the representation of petitioner duly taking into

consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar

Singh's case (supra).

3. It is stated, in the light of the above order, petitioner

made representation dated 21.04.2018 to the Chairman,

TSLPRB and pm 15.05.2018 to the DGP and Hon'ble Minister

for Home with a request to consider his case, but the 3rd

respondent rejected the claim of petitioner vide order dated

20.08.2018 on the ground that an attempt was made to

suppress the factual information in the attestation form.

Learned counsel submits that petitioner did not mention in the

relevant column in the attestation form submitted on

30.06.2024 under a bona fide impression that he was acquitted

in criminal cases. Subsequently, on 02.07.2024, petitioner

himself voluntarily submitted three crime numbers in the

attestation form with permission. Aggrieved by the order dated

20.08.2018, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 40400 of 2018,

wherein this Court passed interim order dated 09.11.2018

directing the 1st respondent to re-consider the case of petitioner,

however, the government rejected his claim vide memo dated

01.03.2019 and communicated the same vide memo dated

06.03.2019.

4. Challenging the above memo dated 01.03.2019,

petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 880 of 2020. Pending both the

Writ Petitions, at request of petitioner and similarly-placed

person viz. A. Jithender, their cases were placed before the

Screening Committee consisting of five members on 22.02.2020

and both the cases were rejected vide memo dated 03.06.2020.

Therefore, petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2020 in Writ

Petition No. 880 of 2020 seeking amendment of prayer. The said

Application was allowed by order dated 10.07.2023.

5. Heard Government Pleader for Services (Home) on

behalf of respondents.

6. The question whether the factum of involvement in

crime and acquittal suppressed is material for not allowing

petitioner to join the public service, is no more res integra as it

has already been decided by various pronouncements, in the

light of the guidelines issued in the judgment in Avatar Singh's

case. Learned counsel for petitioner has also brought to the

notice of this Court the fact that Sri M. Jithender, who is

similarly-placed with that of petitioner, filed Writ Petition No.

444 of 2021 and this Court allowed the same in part on

26.04.2023. While deciding the said Writ Petition, this Court

referred the judgment in Mankala Shiva Kumar v. State of

Telangana (2021 SCC Online TS 2955), wherein placing

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar

Singh's case, set aside cancellation of appointment and

directed the authorities to appoint the candidate by making the

following observations:

" 11. The composition of offence amounts to an acquittal in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., which is extracted below:

"320. Compounding of offences-

...

(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has beencompounded."

Thus, when an offence is compounded, it results in acquittal for all purposes. The interesting issue which arises for consideration here is 'whether such acquittal is a clean acquittal or acquittal on merits or 'honourable acquittal'.

12. Honourable acquittal is not defined under criminal law. It is coined by judicial pronouncements. A clean acquittal is said to be an acquittal on contest and on merits of the case unlike an acquittal on technical grounds like in a situation where an accused is given benefit of doubt or where witnesses have turned hostile. But in his case, this Court is no concerned with an acquittal on merits or technical

grounds. This is an acquittal on composition of offences. Certain classes of offences are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Again there is sub-classification of compoundable offences under sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) covers cases which are compoundable without permission of the Court and Sub-section (2) covers offences which are compoundable with the permission of the Court.

13. A crime is said to be a public wrong and every crime registered has to reach its logical conclusion irrespective of parties (accused and victim/complainant) entering into a compromise for withdrawal of prosecution. It is the State which undertakes the responsibility on behalf of the victim(s) to prosecute the accused and bring them to justice. But at the same time, the law makers in their legislative wisdom have categorized certain offences as "compoundable" understandably keeping in view the gravity of the offences and its impact on the society. The compoundable offences are less serious offences and are private in nature. Further the offences covered under Sub-Section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. are minor offences and trivial in nature and mostly having limited impact on the society. These offences do not require any permission of the Court for composition.

14. The Law Commission of India has made the following observations in para 24.66 of its 41st report discussing about Section 345 Cr.P.C. of 1848 (corresponding to Section 320 Cr.P.C. of 1973):

"24.66. ... The broad principle that forms the basis of the present scheme is that where the offence is essentially of a private nature and relatively not serious, it is compoundable ..."

15. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in RAJEEV VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. (2004 SCC OnLine All 1821) considered the report of the Law Commission of India while dealing with a writ petition filed for quashing of charge sheet registered under

Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it was observed as under:

"23. An analysis of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and an examination of its legislative history shows that usually two classes of cases have been made non-compoundable. These are very grave cases, or cases against the public interest. When basically it is an individual who is aggrieved, those provision have usually been made compoundable, particularly where the offence is of minor nature. The Law Commission in para 24.66 of its 41st Report in connection with S. 345 of old, 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds with the present S. 320 Cr.P.C. has expressed it as follows:

"The broad principle that forms the basis of the present scheme is that where the offence is essentially of a private nature and relatively not serious, it is compoundable."

16. The petitioner herein was involved in offences under Sections 448, 427, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, which are covered under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner and the complainant have arrived at a settlement and compounded the offences under LokAdalat award dated 08.09.2018 in C.C.No.637 of 2017.

17. In the opinion of this court acquittal in the instant case has to be treated as a clean acquittal, more particularly, since the offences are covered under Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. and compoundable without permission of the Court. The reasoning of the respondent No.2 in para 10 of the impugned order that '...The victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash Off the Criminal antecedents of the accused', is unwarranted, perverse and improper. Such an observation is also contrary to the provision under Section 320 Cr.P.C and judgment of the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH's case (1 supra). In order to test the character or nature of a proceeding arising out of criminal law, the authority ought to have had basic understanding of criminal law, the nature of offences as to whether they are compoundable or not and the effect of such composition of offences.

18. The next consequential issue is "what is the effect of suppression of involvement/acquittal in the criminal case by the petitioner". The offences as discussed supra are trivial and 16 compoundable in nature. Even if involvement in such criminal case and acquittal was disclosed it would not have altered the situation. The suppression if any is not of a material fact and the respondents No.2 should, in all probabilities, have condoned the lapse if any.

19. It needs to be pointed out that the petitioner in his explanation dated 02.07.2020 stated that in the form downloaded by him, the relevant columns with regard to criminal offences was not there but due to lack of knowledge, he had indicated 'NO' in the column with respect to criminal case and related columns. Such explanation of the petitioner is not convincing to come to a conclusion that suppression of information was unintentional.

7. Here, in the instant case, petitioner was acquitted

by giving benefit of doubt as prosecution miserably failed to

prove the charges levelled against him, when once petitioner

was acquitted, the entire crime registered against him goes.

Further, Section 3 (xiv) of the 2015 Act clearly postulates that

all the past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice

System should be erased except in special circumstances.

However, the Screening Committee did not take into

consideration the said provision and also closure of the case

and without recording any reasons, passed impugned order

dated 03.06.2020 rejecting representation of petitioner.

Petitioner was involved in criminal cases in 2004 and 2001