The Allahabad High Court, comprising a division bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran, has ruled that an application for the issuance or renewal of a character certificate cannot be rejected merely on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case involving offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, which had refused to renew the petitioner’s character certificate, the High Court directed the authority to consider the matter and issue the character certificate within three weeks.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Bharat Lal Gupta, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated November 1, 2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai (Respondent No. 2), rejecting his application for the renewal of his character certificate as renewed earlier. The petitioner further prayed for a direction to Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law upon his application dated January 4, 2021.
The application for the character certificate was rejected by the authority due to the pendency of Case Crime No. 913 of 2018 registered against the petitioner under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for grant of a character certificate had been rejected prior to an order of acquittal being passed by the Criminal Law Court. The petitioner contended that the authority was required to revisit the decision in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471.
The petitioner also relied upon the judgment dated May 28, 2025, passed in Writ-C No. 718 of 2025 (Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:32272-DB) along with connected matters. Further reliance was placed on similar High Court decisions, including Naveen Rajhans v. State of U.P. and 5 Others (Writ A No. 6543 of 2023, decided on April 28, 2023) and Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others (Writ A No. 4577 of 2019, decided on January 8, 2021).
The Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents referred to paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and the petition was liable to be dismissed. However, the State did not dispute the legal proposition discussed in the cases of Naveen Rajhans and Sonu Yadav.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
In its analysis, the High Court examined its previous ruling in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, quoting paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment:
“19. In this case also on account of pendency of a criminal case bearing Case Crime No.138 of 2018 under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC issuance of character certificate to the petitioner has been declined.“
“20. In view of the reasons already given by us in our order dated 26.05.2025, the impugned order is quashed. The concerned authority whether it is Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate should issue a certificate on the format mentioned in the above quoted order and in terms thereof, within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted.“
The Court further referenced the principles enunciated in paragraph 38 of Avtar Singh v. Union of India:
“38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.“
“38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.“
“38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.“
“38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :“
“38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.“
“38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.“
“38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.“
“38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.“
“38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.“
“38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.“
“38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.“
“38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.“
“38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.“
“38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.“
Applying these principles, the bench observed:
“From the perusal of the aforesaid judgement, relevant paragraphs of which have already been quoted above, we are of the opinion that due to pendency of the aforesaid case under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the application for grant of character certificate could not be rejected.“
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated November 1, 2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.
The Court directed the District Magistrate to issue a character certificate on the specified format within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Additionally, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to place a copy of the certified copy of the referenced judgment along with a copy of this order before Respondent No. 2.
Case Title: Bharat Lal Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: WRIT-C No. 32565 of 2021
Bench: Justice Prakash Padia, Justice Vivek Saran
Date: July 28, 2026
