Allahabad High Court Quashes DCP's Order Rejecting Constable's Appointment Despite Acquittal In Case Under S 498A IPC

Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Court criticized the authorities for adopting a “mechanical approach” in rejecting the petitioner’s appointment, failing to consider the full context, including the acquittal and the trivial nature of the charges.

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, rejecting the appointment of a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, despite his acquittal in a criminal case registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The bench of Justice JJ Munir directed the police authorities to reconsider petitioner Siddharth Singh’s candidature within three weeks, emphasizing that implication in criminal cases should not automatically disqualify a person from public employment.

Court noted that the petitioner was not even the husband of the prosecutrix rather he was the husband's brother.

Court noted that the District Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, as the Certifying and the Appointing Authority, had applied a thumb rule to the judgment of acquittal to conclude against the petitioner on the ground alone that the witnesses had turned hostile.

This is not a case involving a heinous offence, where the accused - a possible desperado or a hardened criminal - might have suborned witnesses or won them over. The crime itself is a fall out of matrimonial maladjustment between the spouses. The corpus delicti in this case would not show any case or evidence of violence, court pointed out. 

Court opined that the petitioner was a victim of an accident, because his brother and sister-in-law could not get along in matrimony.

Court said, "When an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and the accompanying charges under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are in issue. While the evil may be rife in society, it is equally true that there is abundant false implication. This is particularly so about the relatives of the husband, not so directly connected, with the sovoured matrimonial bond between the spouses. This includes the husbands, brothers, married sisters and the sister's husband, all of whom may unnecessarily suffer the stigma of being under the malevolent shadow of a criminal case, when there is not the slightest of criminality about any facet of there being".

Court further emphasized that not every criminal case—particularly one involving domestic disputes—should lead to a lifetime ban from public service. It criticized the authorities for adopting a “mechanical approach” in rejecting the petitioner’s appointment, failing to consider the full context, including the acquittal and the trivial nature of the charges.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Police, the court highlighted that youthful indiscretions or minor offenses should not result in permanent disqualification from government jobs if the individual has been acquitted and poses no threat to public order. It also referred to Avtar Singh v. Union of India, underscoring that acquittals based on witness hostility must be carefully reviewed before disqualifying a candidate from employment.

Siddharth Singh had been selected for the post of constable in 2013 and was set to begin training in December 2015. However, a case under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and the Dowry Prohibition Act had been registered against him in connection with a matrimonial dispute involving his brother. Despite a stay on proceedings and his disclosure of the case during the recruitment process, his appointment was blocked.

In 2019, Singh was acquitted after witnesses turned hostile. However, in February 2023, the Deputy Commissioner of Police rejected his application, stating that the acquittal did not absolve him of the suspicion surrounding his involvement in the case. The officer concluded that the witnesses’ hostility suggested a compromise had been reached, typical of rural domestic disputes, and thus considered Singh unsuitable for the police force.

The high court, however, held that the rejection of Singh’s appointment based on such reasoning was arbitrary and unfair. Court concluded that Singh’s acquittal in the dowry harassment case should have been given due consideration.

Case Title: Siddharth Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others