The Allahabad High Court recently directed Uttar Pradesh Police to reconsider the case of a man who was denied the job of a Police Constable on account of a case under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against him [Siddharth Singh vs State of UP And 5 Others].
The police authorities had rejected petitioner Siddharth Singh’s case despite his acquittal in the case,
The police had said that he had been cleared of the criminal charges only because the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.
Justice JJ Munir said the background of the person and his general reputation must also be taken into account in such cases, particularly when considering the effect of a judgement of acquittal.
The Court then went on to make observations regarding false implication in Section 498A IPC cases.
“This is particularly true, this Court must make it bold to say, 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,” it said.
The Court also opined that not every crime needs to be regarded as a definitive, predetermined disablement from government employment.
“A mechanical approach, which reads like a mathematical equation, always leading to disqualification from public employment for a person, against whom a criminal case is registered - whatever be the charge - even if he is acquitted - has to be eschewed,” the Court said.
It added that the nature of the case has to be taken into consideration and also the background in which the accusation was made.
“The degree of moral turpitude attaching to the crime given the prevailing circumstances in society, must also be borne in mind. Also, it cannot be discounted if the offence is one that has become commonplace in society by easy false implications. Of course, this Court does not wish to say that any generalization be made out of these propositions,” it added.
The petitioner had been selected for the policing job in 2015 but his candidature was rejected in 2016 due to the pendency of the criminal case.
Later, the a single-judge of the High Court came to his rescue and ordered that he be sent to training during pendency of his plea for appointment. In 2017, a Division Bench set aside the interim order and asked the single-judge to decide the matter on merits.
The single-judge in 2022 set aside the rejection of Singh’s candidature and asked the police to consider the matter afresh, taking into account his subsequent acquittal in the Section 498A case.
However, the police authorities again rejected his candidature while relying on the opinion of District Magistrate of Varanasi who said the petitioner was not fit for appointment.
Singh then approached the High Court for the second time.
Taking note of the fact that Singh is the brother-in-law of the complainant who had filed the 498A IPC case, the Court said,
“The District Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, as the Certifying and the Appointing Authority, have 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."
The Court added that Singh appeared to have been the victim in the fight between his brother and sister-in-law.
“Going a step further, if one were to think that indeed the husband or the in-laws demanded dowry or mistreated the prosecutrix, there is nothing in the judgment, particularly, appearing against the petitioner. It would be too much, in our opinion, to deprive a man otherwise of clean antecedents, of hard won public employment in the fashion the respondents have done. It is clearly arbitrary,” it further said.
It also opined that the idea of police as disciplined force cannot be exalted to a position, where all candidates, seeking recruitment to the force, must be expected to be men, unscathed by the wear and tear of life or the accidents of contemporary society.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order rejecting Singh’s case and asked the police authorities to make a fresh decision.
“A mandamus is issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police aforesaid to pass fresh orders within three weeks next of the receipt of a copy of this judgment, bearing in mind the guidance here,” it ordered.
Advocate Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari represented the petitioner.
Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi represented UP Police.
[Read Judgment]