Interference with educational institutions and damage to public records warrant criminal prosecution over inherent jurisdiction.

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

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 14.02.2026, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, took cognizance on 04.02.2026

The 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

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested to withdraw the petition, but the Court declined the request

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.

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.

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

Section 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

The 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.

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

While 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

The 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

Regarding 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

The request to withdraw the petition was denied, the petition was found to be devoid of merit, and it was dismissed

The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2885/2026 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, shall continue