01Facts
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Kalyan College, Bhilai, was named in FIR Crime No. 682/2025 for allegedly entering college premises on 09.12.2025 during exam-related work, raising slogans, obstructing official duties, tearing examination forms, and damaging public property
pp. 3-4, 7-8Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 14.02.2026, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, took cognizance on 04.02.2026
pp. 3-4The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order under Section 482 of the CrPC (now inherent jurisdiction under BNSS), claiming he was not present at the scene (citing CCTV footage) and that the charges were a "counterblast" to his RTI queries regarding administrative irregularities
pp. 5-6During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested to withdraw the petition, but the Court declined the request
p. 802Issues
i.1. Whether the criminal proceedings, including the FIR and charge-sheet, should be quashed on the grounds of alleged mala fides, lack of presence at the scene, and professional rivalry.
p. 5, 8ii.2. Whether the Court should allow the withdrawal of a petition challenging criminal proceedings involving allegations of damage to public property and interference with institutional functioning.
pp. 8-903Law Applied
The Court considered the penal provisions under Sections 191(2) (rioting), 221 (obstructing public servant), 296 (obscene acts/songs), 324(1) (mischief), 343, and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
pp. 2-3Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994
p. 4The underlying principle applied was the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, balanced against the gravity of offences involving public institutions and records.
Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61Section 191Section 221Section 296Section 324Section 343
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Section 3
04Reasoning
The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea for quashing, noting that the investigation was complete and the material collected prima facie disclosed the commission of the alleged offences
p. 7While the petitioner claimed an alibi and personal vendetta, the Court found that the allegations—specifically the tearing of government documents, spilling of ink on records, and defacing of office property—were serious matters of public concern that could not be dismissed without a trial
p. 9The Court emphasized that since a charge-sheet had already been filed and cognizance taken, the matter had reached the stage of trial where evidence must be adjudicated by the lower court
p. 7Regarding the request for withdrawal, the Court held that due to the gravity of the allegations involving the functioning of an educational institution and damage to government property, the petition could not be dismissed as withdrawn and required a decision on the merits
pp. 8-905Holding
The Court held that no interference was warranted as the material on record prima facie implicated the petitioner in acts that disrupted public office and institutional discipline
p. 9The request to withdraw the petition was denied, the petition was found to be devoid of merit, and it was dismissed
p. 9The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2885/2026 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, shall continue
p. 4, 10Original Court PDF
NITESH GUPTAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
