Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P.

2026 INSC 501
Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.2530 of 2026


Madan Gopal
...Appellant

Versus

The State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents



O R D E R

Past sins cast long shadows; and the appellant herein is
trying to dodge the shadow of misdemeanor committed in
1993, when he attempted to claim the status of a Scheduled
Tribe. The appellant, an Engineer, was first appointed in the
Central Public Works Department and later appointed to the
State Service in the year 1984. His entry into State Service
was on availing the benefit of a ‘backward class’ based on a
certificate issued, which indicated his caste as ‘ Mallah’ . In
1993, the appellant produced Annexure P4 certificate before
the Government asserting his roots in the ‘ Majhwar’
community notified in the Scheduled Tribes order issued
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.05.16
13:15:27 IST
Reason:
under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.
Page 1 of 4

Crl. A. 2530 of 2026

2. Initially, Government approved it but later based on an
enquiry conducted, the Tehsildar, Kalpi, District Jalaun, by
Annexure P10 reported that Annexure P4, the photocopy of
the certificate alleged to have been issued, does not bear the
issue serial number. It was concluded that the certificate was
not one issued from the said office based on which FIR No.330
of 2004 was registered in Police Station, Kalpi, District Jalaun
as is indicated at Annexure P11.
3. Annexure P11 indicates that when the appellant applied
to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post
of Assistant Engineer, he had mentioned his caste as ‘ Mallah’ ,
a ‘backward class’ and later in the year 1993, after nine years
of joining service Annexure P4 was produced. The
jurisdictional Court having proceeded to issue summons, the
appellant filed an application for quashing the FIR under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which
was rejected by the impugned judgment.
4. Before us also the learned counsel for the appellant
tried to assert that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe
community as per the certificate issued. We are unable to
Page 2 of 4

Crl. A. 2530 of 2026

place any reliance on Annexure P4, since the copy does not
show the date on which it was issued and also based on the
report of the Tehsildar, which is fatal to its validity. Further, it
is pertinent that the appellant’s appointment in state service
was after the date seen from the certificate. There is no
perceivable reason as to why the claim was not made at that
point of time. He sought selection only on the basis of his
backward caste certificate.
5. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned Government Advocate
submits that as of now every attempt made by the appellant
to assert his tribal status as per Annexure P4 certificate has
failed and the writ petition on that count before the High
Court has also been dismissed.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that
the appellant is a septuagenarian, retired from service in the
meanwhile, left alone in this world having lost his wife and
both children, vagaries of fate. A person who tries to
appropriate the benefits due to a Scheduled Tribe by dubious
means, not only commits an illegal act but also denies a
rightful candidate such benefits and normally does not
Page 3 of 4

Crl. A. 2530 of 2026

deserve any grace. But only considering the fact that the
appellant was not able to obtain any benefit of the status he
wrongly claimed and the futility of taking the prosecution to
its logical conclusion at this point of time we are inclined to
put the controversy at rest but, however, making it clear that
none can claim parity on the basis of Annexure P4 certificate
which in any event is found to be not valid.
7. We, hence, quash the proceedings initiated as per
Charge-sheet No.3 of 2006 and the Criminal Case No.2213 of
2006 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai shall be closed and consigned to
the records.
8. The appeal stands allowed only in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)



...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
MAY 14, 2026.
Page 4 of 4

Crl. A. 2530 of 2026