Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 19 (MP)

Madhvi D/o Raghuvir Shakya v. State of M. P.

2017-01-03

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2017
ORDER : Vivek Agarwal, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by respondent No.4 whereby petitioner on the basis of character verification form has been declared as ineligible for police service. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged by her sister-in-law under the provision of Section 498-A of IPC against the brother of petitioner and her name was not mentioned in the FIR which is enclosed by the petitioner as annexure P-5. Subsequently in the trial, she has been honourably acquitted vide order dated 17.10.2014 passed by JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior in case no.1231/2014 and, therefore, merely trial faced by the petitioner will not justify the stand taken by the respondents that her character verification was not up to the mark specially when the offence as alleged was not found proved against the petitioner and her brother. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order of Indore Bench passed on 28.07.2015 in W.A.No.73/2015 wherein the respondent himself faced trial under the provision of Section 498 -A of IPC before the JMFC, Ujjain and after acquittal from said trial his W.P.No.3560/2014 (s) was allowed quashing the order declaring the petitioner to be eligible for appointment in police service and said order was upheld by the Division Bench in the said writ appeal. 4. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 specially when the fact regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature and that petitioner has been honourably acquitted from the said charges were disclosed in character verification form, there is no justification for this Court to deviate from the view already taken by this Court in the case of Dataram Yadav v. State of M.P. as reported in 2016 (4) MPLJ 370 as well as the view taken by the Division Bench in writ appeal no.73/2015 (supra). Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to pass appropriate order reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.