Alleged proxy teaching, without dishonest inducement or property delivery, does not constitute cheating under Section 318(4) BNS.

The petitioner, Roop Singh Chadar, was a teacher posted in District Sagar.

Following a newspaper report dated 18 November 2024 alleging that Vikram Singh Lodhi was performing teaching duties in the petitioner’s place, an inspection was conducted by education authorities.

The petitioner was suspended on 18 November 2024, and FIR Crime No. 378/2024 was registered at Police Station Malthon, District Sagar, under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on 19 November 2024.

Departmental proceedings were subsequently initiated.

In the enquiry, the principal allegation that Vikram Singh Lodhi had been working in place of the petitioner was found not proved.

Despite this finding, the petitioner’s services were terminated, primarily on account of the pending criminal case.

The petitioner therefore sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of cheating punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law where the principal factual allegation had not been proved in the departmental enquiry?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 318(4) of the BNS requires the foundational elements of cheating, including deception, dishonest inducement and consequential delivery of property or the obtaining of wrongful gain.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which authorises quashing where the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or where continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

Although departmental and criminal proceedings ordinarily operate in distinct fields, the Court considered the departmental finding relevant because it substantially undermined the factual basis of the criminal case.

The FIR alleged only that the petitioner remained absent from duty and that another person performed teaching functions in his place.

The Court held that these allegations did not disclose any deception, dishonest inducement, fraudulent representation, delivery of property or wrongful gain attributable to the petitioner, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of Section 318(4) of the BNS.

The departmental enquiry had also specifically found the principal allegation of substitution by another person to be unproved, thereby substantially eroding the factual foundation of the FIR.

In light of these circumstances, and noting that a similarly situated co-accused had already received relief, the Court concluded under the Bhajan Lal principles that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.

It held that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The petition was accordingly allowed, and FIR Crime No. 378/2024 registered at Police Station Malthon, District Sagar, together with all consequential proceedings insofar as they related to the petitioner, was quashed.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.