ORDER

This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the applicant, Roop Singh Chadar, seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 378/2024 registered at Police Station Malthon, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he was serving as a teacher under the School Education Department and was posted within District Sagar. It is alleged that on the basis of a news item published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 18.11.2024 alleging that another person was performing teaching duties in place of the applicant, an inspection was conducted by the Development Block Education Officer, Malthon and the Development Block Coordinator. During the inspection, statements of certain students and local persons were allegedly recorded and it was concluded that one Vikram Singh Lodhi was discharging duties in place of the applicant. Consequently, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.11.2024, filed as Annexure A/2. On the recommendation of the Development Block Education Officer, FIR bearing Crime No.378/2024 dated 19.11.2024 was registered against the applicant under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023. A copy of the FIR has been filed as Annexure A/1.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that subsequent to registration of the FIR, a departmental charge-sheet was issued to the applicant and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The charge-sheet has been placed on record as Annexure A/3. It is submitted that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted by the competent authority wherein the principal allegation that Vikram Singh Lodhi was working in place of the applicant was specifically examined. According to the enquiry report, filed as Annexure A/4, Charge No.1 relating to substitution of the applicant by another person was found not proved and the applicant stood exonerated of the said allegation. It is argued that despite such categorical findings, the respondents proceeded to terminate the services of the applicant vide order dated 04.06.2025, filed as Annexure A/5, primarily on the ground of pendency of the criminal case.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the very foundation of the FIR is the allegation that another person was performing duties in place of the applicant and when the same allegation has not been established even in departmental proceedings, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the ingredients of Section 318(4) of BNS are completely absent in the present case. There is no allegation that the applicant dishonestly induced any person to deliver property, obtained any pecuniary advantage by deception, or made any fraudulent representation so as to constitute the offence of cheating. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to contend that where the allegations contained in the FIR do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court deserves to be exercised for securing the ends of justice. It is also submitted that a co- accused facing similar allegations has already been granted relief by this Court in a separate petition and a copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure A/6.

5 . Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and the allegations levelled against the applicant require thorough investigation. It is contended that the scope of interference at the stage of investigation is limited and the Court should not embark upon appreciation of evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. It is further argued that departme