The Supreme Court has ruled that a candidate cannot be denied appointment to the police force merely because he was once accused in a criminal case that was later compounded before a Lok Adalat, especially when there is no material to establish guilt and the candidate had made a full disclosure of his antecedents.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan has observed that in cases involving allegations of cheating based on a promise to marry, the complainant’s testimony is crucial to establish whether there was deception. Once the complainant chose to settle the dispute and no evidence was led during trial, the authorities could not presume guilt.
The case arose from the recruitment process for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) conducted by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.
The appellant, Gajula Thirupathi, had been provisionally selected for appointment subject to verification of his antecedents and certificates. During the verification process, he disclosed that a criminal case had earlier been registered against him under Sections 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case originated from a complaint lodged by a woman who alleged that the appellant had maintained a relationship with her on the promise of marriage but later married another woman. The appellant’s parents were also accused of threatening the complainant. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. However, before the trial could conclude, the parties entered into a settlement and the matter was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
Despite the settlement, the Recruitment Board issued a show-cause notice and subsequently cancelled the appellant’s provisional selection. The authorities viewed the allegations as involving “moral turpitude” and concluded that a person with such antecedents was unsuitable for police service. They further observed that compromise of the case did not erase the criminal antecedents and treated the settlement as indicative of guilt.
The Board relied on service rules that disqualify candidates involved in offences involving moral turpitude and cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need for impeccable character in police personnel.
The candidate challenged the cancellation before the Telangana High Court.
A Single Judge ruled in his favour, noting that the criminal case had ended in a settlement, there was no adverse material apart from that solitary case, and the authorities ought to have considered the overall circumstances before rejecting his candidature. The Court directed reconsideration of his case for appointment.
However, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision, holding that the allegations involved moral turpitude and that the employer was best placed to assess suitability for a disciplined force like the police.
The court examined whether the employer’s decision was arbitrary and whether the mere existence of a compromised criminal case could justify denial of appointment.
The Court reiterated that even where a candidate truthfully discloses past criminal proceedings, the employer retains the authority to assess suitability. However, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
According to the Court, where appointment is denied despite acquittal or discharge, there must be material showing:
- That an offence was actually committed; and
- That there is evidence linking the candidate to that offence.
The Court found neither requirement satisfied in the present case.
A key aspect of the judgment was the Court’s rejection of the Recruitment Board’s assumption that compromise amounted to an admission of guilt.
The Court described the authorities’ reasoning as “without any basis,” observing that merely because a person chooses to settle a criminal case does not mean he accepts criminal liability. Likewise, the conclusion that the appellant compromised because he was guilty was termed “completely perverse” and contrary to logic.
In one of the most notable observations of the judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged changing social realities concerning relationships between consenting adults.
The Court observed that premarital relationships are increasingly common and that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot, by itself, create an adverse impression regarding a person’s character. It further noted that not every romantic relationship culminates in marriage and the failure of a relationship to end in marriage cannot automatically be treated as evidence of cheating.
The Bench highlighted that the appellant and the complainant were neighbours, had known each other for years, and had been in a relationship for about four years. In such circumstances, there was no basis to infer criminal conduct merely because the relationship ultimately failed.
The Court distinguished earlier decisions such as Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, where denial of appointment had been upheld despite compromise because the allegations involved violent conduct, assault, and public disorder. In those cases, there was substantial material suggesting criminal conduct.
By contrast, in the present case, the very commission of the alleged offence remained doubtful since the complainant herself had withdrawn the allegations and agreed to compound the matter.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Recruitment Board’s decision to reject the appellant’s candidature was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.
The Court restored the order of the Single Judge of the Telangana High Court and set aside the Division Bench judgment. As a result, the appellant’s case will now be reconsidered for appointment in accordance with the directions issued by the Single Judge.
Case Details
Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi Versus The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board And Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-1571-SC-2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.8059 Of 2026
Date: 21/05/2026
