Court holds criminal proceedings an abuse of process as departmental enquiry exonerates teacher; FIR under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 quashed.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 11, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Roop Singh Chadar, a government school teacher accused under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged that another person was performing the petitioner's teaching duties in his absence, a charge which the Court found to lack essential ingredients of the offence charged.
The case arose when a newspaper report alleged that Vikram Singh Lodhi was discharging teaching duties in place of Roop Singh Chadar at a school in District Sagar. Following an inspection by education officials and statements from students and locals, the petitioner was suspended and an FIR was registered against him. The allegations specifically invoked Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with cheating involving deception and dishonest inducement.
However, during subsequent departmental disciplinary proceedings, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the competent authority. The enquiry report conclusively found that the principal allegation-that someone else was working in place of the petitioner-was not proved. Despite this exoneration, the petitioner's services were terminated, and the criminal proceedings continued.
The petitioner challenged the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings before the High Court, contending that the allegations did not disclose the essential elements of the offence of cheating under Section 318(4) BNS, 2023, such as deception or dishonest inducement. He argued that the continuation of the criminal case amounted to an abuse of the process of law, especially after the departmental enquiry had disproven the foundational factual allegations.
The State opposed the petition, asserting that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence requiring investigation and that departmental and criminal proceedings are separate. The State submitted that the Court should not interfere at the investigation stage.
After hearing both sides, the Court found that the FIR's allegations were substantially eroded by the departmental enquiry findings. The Court emphasized that the FIR did not allege any fraudulent representation or wrongful gain by the petitioner, which are essential to the offence under Section 318(4). The Court also noted that a co-accused in a similar situation had already been granted relief by the Court.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. BhajanLal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court reiterated that where allegations in an FIR do not constitute an offence or continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Roop Singh Chadar. The Court held that the continuation of the criminal case would serve no useful purpose and amounted to misuse of the legal process.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue when the allegations lack the essential ingredients of the offence and are disproven by credible departmental findings. It also highlights the separation of departmental and criminal domains but recognizes that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for harassment when the foundational facts are not established.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings cannot be continued where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of the offence and the factual foundation of the allegations has been disproven in departmental proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Roop Singh Chadar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (MP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981977
