The Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that a candidate cannot be denied a compassionate appointment to the police force solely on the grounds of past criminal cases arising out of a matrimonial dispute, especially when the candidate transparently disclosed the trials and was subsequently acquitted. Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat allowed the writ petition, quashing the state’s rejection orders and directing the authorities to proceed with the candidate’s appointment process as a constable within two months.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Raghvendra Tomar, sought a compassionate appointment following the demise of his father, late Rajkumar Singh Tomar, who passed away in harness on October 23, 2022, while serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the police department at Police Station Mallgada. With the mutual consent of all his family members, Tomar submitted an application for the post of constable. Following the instructions of the respondents, he submitted an attestation form and an affidavit explicitly disclosing the pendency of two criminal cases against him.
The police authorities (Respondent No. 4) initially rejected his claim, treating him as ineligible due to the pending criminal cases. Subsequently, Tomar was acquitted by the learned Magistrate in the first case (related to Crime No. 506/2021) and requested the authorities to reconsider his case. However, Respondent No. 3 declined the request on June 27, 2025, referring to a prior decision of the scrutiny committee. Following his acquittal in the second criminal case via a judgment dated April 24, 2025, Tomar submitted another application on April 29, 2025. This request was also turned down on July 14, 2025, by Respondent No. 4, who again relied on the scrutiny committee’s earlier decision. Tomar then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
The Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that Tomar had honestly disclosed the pendency of both criminal cases in both his attestation form and affidavit. He emphasized that the offenses in question did not involve moral turpitude, explaining that Tomar was falsely roped into the cases as a family member due to a matrimonial dispute between his brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi). Despite facing trial through no fault of his own and subsequently being acquitted in both cases, his appointment was unjustly denied. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., where the Apex Court directed the appointment of a candidate under similar circumstances.
Conversely, the Government Advocate representing the State opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders. The State contended that the Scrutiny Committee evaluated the case and rightly declined to appoint him, asserting that the charges were serious and that a mere acquittal does not create an automatic right to appointment in disciplined or uniformed services. The State argued that the acquittal was not a “clean acquittal” but rather a result of a compromise, benefits of doubt, and hostility of witnesses. To support its stance, the State relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Another V/s. Mehar Singh, State of Madhya Pradesh & Others V/s. Parvez Khan, and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Others.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon reviewing the records, the High Court observed that Tomar did not suppress any material facts and had duly disclosed the legal proceedings. The court noted that the criminal cases under Section 498A of the IPC originated from a family matrimonial dispute that eventually ended in an out-of-court settlement, leading the complainant and prosecution witnesses to turn hostile and not corroborate the prosecution’s story.
The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Singh Kirar, which established that candidates should not be denied appointments for past matrimonial disputes that ended in settlements, distinguishing it from cases like Anil Kanwariya where candidates obtained appointments through fraud, conviction, or active concealment of material facts.
Evaluating the timeline of the offenses from 2015 to 2021 and the eventual acquittal in 2025, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed:
“Under these circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2015 to 2021 in which he was even acquitted in the year 2025 may be on settlement (between husband and wife).”
Decision of the Court
Finding merit in the petition, the High Court allowed the plea and quashed the impugned rejection orders dated April 14, 2023, June 27, 2025, and July 14, 2025. The court directed the respondents to go ahead with the process of appointment and grant the petitioner a compassionate appointment to the post of Constable. The state authorities have been ordered to comply with these directions within a period of two months from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order.
Case Details: Case Title: Raghvendra Tomar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 41182 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat
Date: June 22, 2026
