ca s e petitioner was ultimately ac q uitted and the candidate was not in v olved in any serious offences. Thus, a lenient view was taken. In th e instant case, however, offe n ces in cross-version against the pe t itioner are under Sections 307, 341, 336, 427, 148, 149 IPC a nd 25, 27 of Arms Act and in FI R No.172 dated 24.11.2015 u n der Se c tions 364, 452, 342, 323, 148 , 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Ar m s Act. It appears that trial is still pending. Ratio of judgment in C W P No.14863 of 2017 titled as Sarla Vs. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 31.10.2018 is also not attracted to the instant case as the sai d case was related to mentioni n g of wrong category in the on l ine ap p lication form. Besides , petitio n er, in said case, was a poor wi d ow la dy working as an Anganwari W o rker. She had filled up the on l ine ap p lication form through the hel p of cyber cafe in the village. S he wa s not computer/net savvy. Ho w ever, petitioner in the instant c a se, is a n educated person. Besides, instant is a case of clear suppres s ion of i nformation regarding involvement in criminal cases while see k ing ap p ointment in police force. Ther e is, thus, no ground to interfer e in wr i t jurisdiction. Petition is hereb y dismissed.” 7. A p erusal of the record as well as impugned judgment of lear n ed Single Judge s h ows that the writ petition file d by the appellant has rightly been dismissed sinc e the appellant concealed th e true and relevant facts in the application for m by not providing particular s of the criminal cases regist e red against him. H e suppressed the material fact s . Further as mentioned above , an undertaking w a s given by him, after filling the application form in case any
