Munna Babu Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22203
1 WP-45047-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 45047 of 2025
MUNNA BABU SHAKYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Hardayesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for
seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. That, the respondent be directed to release the amount of
Rs.8,50,000/- forthwith or to pass any suitable order for ensuring the
substantial justice.
2. That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded.
3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner's
brother (Rakesh) allegedly had an illicit relationship with one Samarjeet Yadav.
Aggrieved by this, the deceased committed suicide by drowning. Accordingly, an
offence under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC was registered against the wife of
the deceased (Sangeeta) and Samarjeet Yadav. A charge-sheet was subsequently
filed before the competent Court, and charges were framed against them by the
learned trial Court. However, during the pendency of the trial, the accused persons
filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/28/2026
10:53:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22203
2 WP-45047-2025
the charge-sheet. The said petition, registered as M.Cr.C. No. 7331 of 2022, was

allowed vide order dated 04.01.2023, thereby quashing the consequential criminal
proceedings arising out of Crime No. 198 of 2019, registered at Police Station
Pichhore, District Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of
the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case was
registered under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the petitioner—being the real
brother of the deceased—is entitled to claim compensation under the applicable
rules. Under these circumstances, the present petition has been preferred before
this Hon'ble Court.
4. Per contra, counsel for the State vehementaly opposed the contention
made by counsel for the petitioner by filing reply. According to reply, the State
submits that the petitioner’s claim for compensation rests solely on Crime No.
198/2019. Since the said FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings
were quashed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 in M.Cr.C. No.
7331/2022, the very basis of the claim no longer survives in the eye of law.
5. It is further submitted that under Rule 12 of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995, compensation is neither automatic nor mechanical. It is
contingent upon the establishment of a prima facie case of an atrocity, which is
completely absent here due to the quashing of the proceedings. It is further
submitted that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the alleged
offence was committed on the ground of the victim's caste, which is a mandatory
statutory prerequisite under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is further
submitted that compensation cannot be claimed as a matter of right once the
criminal proceedings are quashed. Since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
any existing legal right or a corresponding legal duty on the State, no writ of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/28/2026
10:53:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22203
3 WP-45047-2025
mandamus can be issued. Consequently, the rejection order dated 22.10.2025

passed by the Commissioner, Scheduled Caste Development, Bhopal, is legal and
sustainable in the eyes of law. In such circumstances, he prayed for its dismissal.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record appended thereto.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, the primary issue that arises for consideration is
whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of statutory compensation under the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder, once
the underlying FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings have
been quashed by this Court.
8. The core object of providing financial relief/compensation under Rule 12
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is to rehabilitate victims of
atrocities. However, the entitlement to such relief is intrinsically linked to the
commission or prima facie establishment of an offence under the Act. In the
present case, the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Crime No. 198/2019
was quashed by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
7331/2022. Once the judicial order quashing the FIR and charge-sheet has attained
finality, the very foundation on which the claim for compensation rests ceases to
exist in the eye of law.
9. Furthermore, to attract Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, it is a
mandatory statutory requirement that the offence must have been committed
against a person specifically on the ground of their caste identity. There is no
material on record to even remotely suggest any caste-based malice or motive.
10. It is a settled position of law that a writ of mandamus under Article 226
of the Constitution of India can only be issued when the petitioner establishes a
clear, existing legal right and a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/28/2026
10:53:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22203
4 WP-45047-2025
State. In the absence of any subsisting criminal proceeding or finding of an

atrocity, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legally enforceable right.
Consequently, the rejection order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner,
Scheduled Caste Development, Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal), suffers from no
illegality, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed.
12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/28/2026
10:53:24 AM