1 2025:CGHC:14284-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 408 of 2024 1 - Prof. Dr. Smt. Neeta Singh Gaharwar, W/o Shri Rajendra Singh Gaharwar Aged About 63 Years Dean, Faculty of Dance, Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh Chhattisgarh, R/o Yatharth Niwas, Chhota Shishu Mandir Road, Raj Family, Civil Line, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dr. Jitesh Gadhpayle S/o Sitaram Gadhpayle Posted as Assistant Professor, Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh Chhattisgarh, R/o Yatharth Niwas, Chhota Shishu Mandir Road, Raj Family, Civil Line, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh (Complainant). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 25.03.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.330 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.27 18:05:18 +0530 2 of 2024, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khairagarh for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Atrocities Act). 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is working as Dean in the Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh (in short, the University). The respondent No.2-complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, was also working as Assistant Professor in the said University. The allegation against the petitioner was that in the capacity of Dean of the said University, many times she harassed, humiliated and insulted the complainant in the name of his Caste in the College premises before the students. In the meanwhile, the complainant was suspended by the petitioner on 30.04.2024 on the alleged ground of his disobeying the instructions of University management as also on account of his unauthorized absent from duty. The complainant tried to lodge FIR against the petitioner under the Atrocities Act but he could not succeed. However, later on, with the help of Superintendent of Police he lodged FIR against the petitioner on 22.08.2024 for the offences as mentioned earlier under the Atrocities Act in Crime No.330 of 2024. Hence this petition by the petitioner for quashment of FIR. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the said lodging of the complaint submits that firstly the registration of FIR is bad in law for the reason that the complaint has been lodged with a mala fide intention because of departmental rivalry with her and on account of his being suspended by the order passed by the petitioner in the capacity of 3 Dean. The complainant used to remain absent from duty unauthorizedly. He also disobeyed the instructions of higher authorities and several complaints were made against him to this effect. He was given several opportunities to upgrade his duties but he didn't do so. Therefore, after obtaining necessary approval from the higher authorities he was placed under suspension on 30.04.2024. He would further submits that only in order to take revenge from the petitioner, the complainant has lodged a false case against the petitioner on 22.08.2024 i.e. much after suspension levelling only omnibus allegation of his being harassed and humiliated by the petitioner in the name of his caste. It is not a case that before suspension he was not provided adequate opportunity of hearing. He was given sufficient opportunity to improve his work & conduct. Even show cause notice was also given. Therefore, no offence as such could have been lodged against the petitioner. Thus, prayed for quashing of FIR. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant would submit that the complainant was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity, however, being a member of Scheduled Caste community he was harassed and humiliated by the petitioner many times before the students in the college premises. He made complaint against the petitioner, however, in the official capacity of her being Dean of said University, no action was taken against her and that is why he was compelled to lodge FIR against her under the Atrocities Act. He further contended that in the inquiry initiated by the Superintendent of Police, the statement of complainant as well as petitioner were recorded wherein the petitioner herself accepted the 4 fact that on 29.04.2024 she humiliated and abused him in the name of his caste which is supported by the version of Sunil Yadav, Pratap Janghel and Mukul Singh. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6 The undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner is Dean of the University and respondent No.2/complainant is her subordinate. There were several allegations against the complainant by the University management as well as by some students. Certain warnings were also given to him for his alleged misconduct and ultimately being dissatisfied with the reply of show cause, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the petitioner herein, however FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 22.08.2024. No explanation is offered by the complainant for such long delay in lodging FIR against the petitioner who passed his suspension order. Thus, prima facie it appears that only to create pressure upon the petitioner, FIR was lodged against her under the Atrocities Act. Had he been insulted or humiliated in the name of his Caste on 29.04.2024, he would have lodged complaint immediately after the said incident but he kept mum and waited till his suspension. Even he lodged the FIR after about four months of his suspension. Thus, it can safely be held that to create pressure upon the University management an afterthought complaint was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner as she was impaneled for the post of Vice Chancellor of said University, to which he was not agree. 5 7 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for interfering with the registration of FIR against the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed and FIR being Crime No.330 of 2024, registered at Police Station Khairagarh against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder