Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

Constitution of India, 1950  - Article 32.

Malicious Prosecution -Compensation - Averments on behalf of the respondent-State that FIRs against the petitioner were lodged for the crimes relating to the petitioner's owning disproportionate assets beyond his income, illegal mining and auction of Tendu patta leaves causing loss of revenue to Government and undue gain to the purchasers - However, except making such averments, no material in support of allegations leveled against the petitioner has been made available to the Court - Order of the High Court clearly indicates that the Additional Advocate General for the State did not dispute the averments made by the petitioner that his case was never referred to Vigilance Committee and consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated against him and all actions taken and complaints lodged against the petitioner declared void and non est in the eye of la - Normally, the Court is reluctant in determining or granting any compensation while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, but advises the parties to approach the competent Courts for adjudicating those issues - Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the age and trauma suffered by the petitioner who spent about 11 days in jail and fought the legal battle for about a period of 10 years before various forums and more particularly in the absence of any proved charges of corruption against the petitioner, respondent State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of three months towards compensation.

Topic(s)-Malicious Prosecution - Compensation - U.P. to pay a lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner