IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 12832 of 2019 DEEPAK SINGH KUSHWAH Versus THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati -Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) That, the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure P/1)

may be quashed.

ii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with Jaywanti on 23rd of January 2007 and after that she died. Accordingly, offence under Section 304B and 498A was registered against the petitioner. Prior to death, a case under Section 498A /34 was registered at Crime No. 64 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in both the cases, petitioner has been acquitted by judgment dated 8.04.2013 and order dated 9.10.2009. Respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was serving in the Department of SAF in 26th Battalion. However, later on the petitioner resigned from the aforesaid Battalion. Thereafter, the post of constable in Shivpuri was advertised by respondents through Vyapam. The petitioner secured merit position. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to be granted appointment. However, impugned order dated 4.7.2017 has been issued by the Commandant 18th Battalion, SAF, Sivapuri. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that petitioner is ineligible because of two cases registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of issuing of impugned order, the scrutiny committee/ respondents have not considered that the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has submitted that Respondents-Authority by Annexure P/1 after considering the case of petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehar Singh v. Commissioner of Delhi and the recent judgment of Avtar Singh V. Union of India found that petitioner was not found suitable for the Department as the Police Department being Department of Public Service which requires great discipline and good character and by considering the same in the column number 3 given the reason for not considering the petitioner as a suitable candidate for the post of Constable GAD in the light of aforesaid judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State further submitted that though Petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court because of the prosecution witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile in certain parts of their statement but the allegations against the petitioner being husband and the death was not natural. Deceased was died due to burning while she was residing with her in-laws in the matrimonial home and death was within 7 years of marriage and death was not natural.

5. The petitioner was involved in the present case for the offence under sections 304B and 498A of IPC. Taking into account the petitioner's involvement and his role in criminal case and in view of the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, the Commandment- respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. The Scrutiny Committee has considered the case of petitioner in Rule 5 as under.

"अ(cid:2)यथ(cid:5) (cid:6)ारा अपराधो का उ(cid:14)लेख अनु(cid:20)माणन फाम (cid:24) मti (cid:26)कया गया है, पर(cid:30)त ु अ(cid:2)यथ(cid:5) (cid:6)ारा (cid:26)कए गये अपराध मti देान(cid:34) अपराध मti नैितक अ(cid:36)ोपतन के आयाम शािमल है एवं (cid:26)कए गये अपराध(cid:34) से अ(cid:2)यथ(cid:5) क(cid:42) अपरािधक (cid:20)कृित (cid:44)(cid:45)(cid:46)गत होकर, भ(cid:45)व(cid:48)य मti पुन: अपराध दोहराए जाने क(cid:42) (cid:20