MP High Court Quashes FIR Against Teacher Accused Of Getting Another Man To Teach In His Place

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against a government school teacher accused of getting another person to perform his teaching duties in his place, holding that the criminal case could not survive once a departmental enquiry had already found the core allegation against him not proved.

A bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi at the Jabalpur was hearing a petition filed by Roop Singh Chadar, a teacher with the School Education Department posted in District Sagar, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Section 482 CRPC), seeking quashment of an FIR registered against him for cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 420 IPC).

The case traced back to a report published in Dainik Bhaskar on November 18, 2024, alleging that one Vikram Singh Lodhi was discharging teaching duties in Chadar's place. Acting on the report, the Development Block Education Officer, Malthon, and the Development Block Coordinator conducted an inspection, during which statements of students and local residents were recorded. Chadar was suspended the same day, and an FIR came to be registered against him the following day at Police Station Malthon.

Alongside the criminal case, the department also initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued him a charge-sheet. Appearing for Chadar, advocate Aviral Vinayak Jaroliya told the court that a full-fledged departmental enquiry had gone into the very same allegation of substitution, and that the enquiry report had found the charge "not proved," resulting in Chadar's exoneration on that count. Despite this categorical finding, he submitted, the department went ahead and terminated Chadar's services through an order dated June 4, 2025, citing pendency of the criminal case as the primary ground.

Jaroliya argued that once the factual foundation of the FIR had collapsed in the departmental enquiry, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. He also pointed out that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted relief by the High Court in a separate petition. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, he contended that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not disclose a cognizable offence.

Ms Hemlata Kshatriya, panel lawyer appearing for the State, opposed the plea, arguing that the FIR did disclose a cognizable offence warranting thorough investigation, and that the court ought not to weigh evidence at this stage. She further submitted that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in separate spheres, and that an officer's exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not automatically entitle him to quashment of a pending criminal case against him.

Examining the FIR, the court noted that the "very factual foundation on which the criminal case has been instituted stands substantially eroded" by the enquiry report, which had specifically recorded that the charge of substitution could not be established.

The court also went into the ingredients of Section 318(4) (Section 420 IPC), observing that cheating requires deception, dishonest inducement, and consequential delivery of property or wrongful gain. It found none of this pleaded in the FIR. "The allegations contained in the FIR do not disclose any act of inducement, fraudulent representation or delivery of property attributable to the applicant," the order stated, adding that at the highest, the allegations "may constitute a matter relating to service misconduct warranting departmental action."

Applying the settled principles from Bhajan Lal, Justice Joshi held that continuing the prosecution "would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law." The court also noted that Chadar's case stood on "a stronger footing" than the co-accused who had secured relief earlier, since he had already been exonerated of the principal allegation in the departmental enquiry.

The petition was allowed, and the FIR bearing Crime No. 378/2024, along with all consequential proceedings arising from it, was quashed insofar as it concerned Chadar. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of as part of the order.

Case Title: Roop Singh Chadar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi