IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 16 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 44126 of 2025 ANKUR BHATNAGAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Petitioner is present in person.

ORDER Lawyers are abstaining from work due to shoot out case of a lawyer at Shivpuri (M.P.). The petitioner appeared in person and requested for hearing of the case inasmuch as much time has already lapsed.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated

22/10/2025, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent no.4, whereby he has been declared unsuitable for appointment on the post of Constable on account of his involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue an appointment order in his favour with all consequential benefits.

3. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner participated in the Police Constable Recruitment Process - 2023 as a candidate under the EWS category. He successfully passed the written test as also the physical test and was allotted posting at SRP Indore. In the process of appointment, during verification of his criminal antecedents, it was found that a criminal case was registered against him by Police Station Prem Nagar, Jhansi (U.P.), for offense punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the said case on 17/10/2023.

4 . The matter was placed before the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 10/09/2025. The committee opined that the offense under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleged against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and as per instructions issued by the State Government vide circular dated 24/07/2018 (Annexure P-8), he is unsuitable for appointment. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 passed the impugned order dated

22/10/2025 declaring the petitioner as unsuitable for appointment.

5. Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner submitted that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case, which was lodged by his sister- in-law (brother’s wife) in connection with their inter-se matrimonial disputes. He submitted that the petitioner, along with his parents, resides at Gwalior, while his brother was residing with his wife at Shivpuri. He also pointed out that his sister-in-law left the house of his brother, as a result of which his brother filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. As a counterblast, the FIR was registered by the complainant after a lapse of about eight months of her leaving the house. The also submitted that by making omnibus allegations, the entire family was roped in the criminal case. Later on, the marital tie was mutually dissolved. The petitioner, as also other family members, were acquitted in the criminal case. The petitioner also referred to his mark-sheets brought on record to say that he has a good academic record and because of the solitary incidence of his false implication in the aforesaid criminal case, he is deprived of his chance of employment. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and for direction to the respondents to issue appointment order in his favour.

6. The respondents have filed the reply wherein they have stated that admittedly the petitioner was involved in the criminal case for offence involving moral turpitude. They have relied upon the Circular dated 24.07.2018 to say that the offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is included as an offence involving moral turpitude. It is their case that the petitioner, who is aspiring for appointment in Police force, is required to have a good character and reputation. Because of criminal case registered against him, it cannot be said that he carries good reputation. It is their case that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by giving benefit of d