The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a cheating case against a government school teacher accused of allowing another person to perform teaching duties in his place, holding that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating.
Justice Himanshu Joshi, while allowing a petition filed by teacher Roop Singh Chadar, noted that the principal allegation underlying the criminal case had also been examined in departmental proceedings and was found not proved.
The court held on September 11 that there was no allegation showing inducement, fraudulent representation or delivery of property attributable to Chadar. It found that continuing the criminal proceedings in these circumstances would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Newspaper Report Led To Inspection And FIR
The proceedings originated from a newspaper report published on November 18, 2024, alleging that another person was teaching in Chadar’s place.
Following the report, the Development Block Education Officer, Malthon, and the Development Block Coordinator carried out an inspection and recorded statements of students and local residents. The authorities allegedly concluded that Vikram Singh Lodhi was performing Chadar’s teaching duties.
Chadar was suspended on November 18, 2024. On the recommendation of the Development Block Education Officer, an FIR for cheating was registered against him the following day.
Departmental proceedings were also initiated after a chargesheet was issued to the teacher.
Principal Allegation Found Not Proved In Departmental Inquiry
During the departmental inquiry, the authorities specifically examined whether Lodhi had been performing teaching duties in place of Chadar.
The inquiry report found the allegation not proved and exonerated Chadar on that charge. His services were nevertheless terminated by an order dated June 4, 2025, primarily on the ground that the criminal case against him remained pending.
Seeking quashing of the FIR, Chadar argued before the High Court that the allegation forming the basis of the criminal prosecution had failed to stand even in the departmental inquiry. He submitted that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would therefore constitute an abuse of the process of law.
High Court Examines Ingredients Of Cheating
The High Court examined whether the allegation that Chadar remained absent while another person allegedly discharged his teaching functions could constitute the offence of cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The court noted that cheating requires essential elements including deception, dishonest inducement and consequential delivery of property or wrongful gain.
It found that the FIR contained no allegation of inducement, fraudulent representation or delivery of property attributable to the teacher. According to the court, the accusations, at their highest, could concern service misconduct and warrant departmental action, but the material on record did not disclose the offence of cheating.
The court also considered the outcome of the departmental inquiry, observing that the failure to establish the principal allegation had substantially weakened the factual foundation of the criminal case.
It further took note that a similarly placed co-accused had already obtained relief in separate proceedings and found Chadar’s position stronger because the principal allegation against him had been found unproved in the departmental inquiry.
State Opposed Quashing Of Criminal Case
The state opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR disclosed a cognisable offence requiring investigation and that the High Court should not undertake an assessment of evidence at that stage.
It further contended that criminal and departmental proceedings operate independently and that exoneration in disciplinary proceedings does not, by itself, justify quashing a criminal prosecution.
The High Court, however, concluded that the circumstances justified its interference. Finding that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating and taking into account the departmental inquiry’s findings, the court quashed the FIR against Chadar and held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
