Absence From Duty, Proxy Teaching At Most Service Misconduct; Not Cheating: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a cheating FIR lodged against a government teacher for substituting another person to perform his teaching duties, observing that the said allegations at most constitute service misconduct. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 377]

Observing that the FIR did not disclose any essential ingredients of cheating, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held,

"Even otherwise, a plain reading of Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita indicates that the essential ingredients of cheating include deception, dishonest inducement and consequential delivery of property or wrongful gain. The allegations contained in the FIR do not disclose any act of inducement, fraudulent representation or delivery of property attributable to the applicant. At the highest, the allegations may constitute a matter relating to service misconduct warranting departmental action. However, the material placed on record does not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS". 

Per the case, a news report was filed in Dainik Bhaskar on November 18, 2024, alleging that another person was performing the teaching duties of the applicant. Upon inspection, it was found that one Vikram Singh Lodhi was discharging the duties of the applicant. Consequently, the applicant was placed under suspension, and an FIR was registered against him. 

The counsel for the applicant submitted that after registration of the FIR, a departmental chargesheet was issued to him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. According to the enquiry report, the charge of substituting another person was not proved against the applicant. The applicant argued that despite this finding of the disciplinary committee, he was terminated from his services primarily on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. 

The counsel for the applicant argued that the foundation of the FIR was the substitution allegation, which was not established in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of the process of law. The applicant argued that the essential ingredients of cheating are absent in the present matter. 

The Government Advocate appearing for the State argued that the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and therefore required thorough investigation. It was also argued that merely because he was exonerated from the substitution charge in departmental proceedings would not result in the quashing of criminal prosecution, since these two proceedings are distinct and operate differently. 

The court noted that the FIR alleged that the applicant was absent and had substituted another person to perform his teaching duties. The record further stated that the said allegation was not established in the departmental inquiry. The bench emphasized, 

"Thus, the very factual foundation on which the criminal case has been instituted stands substantially eroded by the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings". 

Examining Section 318(4) of the BNS, the court noted that the essential ingredients of cheating include deception, dishonest inducement, and consequential delivery of property or wrongful gain, none of which were shown in the FIR. 

The court also noted that similarly situated co-accused were granted relief by the court. Referring to the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp 1 SCC 335], the bench reiterated that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence, then the High Court can quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. 

Thus, the bench quashed the FIR and allowed the petition. 

Case Title: Roop Singh Chadar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-23406-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 377

For Petitioner: Advocate Aviral Vinayak Jaroliya

For State: Advocate Hemlata Kshatriya

Click here to read/download the Order