1 2026:CGHC:2420-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 690 of 2025 Suman Ravi S/o Late Shri Nandlal Ravi Aged About 49 Years R/o Jarhi, Near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, P.S.- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Munnu Singh Dhurve S/o Gulab Singh Dhurve Aged About 42 Years R/o Block Education Officer, Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.19 10:46:11 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and charge- sheet No. 03 of 2025 filed by the police-Bhatgaon, District Surajput dated 26.01.2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur against the present petitioner under Sections 74, 75, 79, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Section 8 of the POCSO, 2012 in pursuance of the FIR No. 153 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 be dismissed and quashed along with the consequential proceedings pertaining to Special Sessions Case No. 04 of 2025 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court, POCSO Act, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Despite due service of notice upon respondent No. 2, he has neither appeared in person nor through counsel. As recorded by this Court in its order dated 11.12.2025, the said fact stands duly noted. Even today, when the matter is called out for hearing, none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. In these circumstances, this Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter in his absence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and posted at Primary School, Kharsota, Gram Panchayat Parmeshwarpur, vide order dated 07.02.2011. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Teacher (Maths) and posted at Government Middle School, Jagatpur, 3 Block Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.). Thereafter, vide transfer order dated 17.05.2023, pursuant to promotion order dated 24.04.2023, the petitioner was transferred to Government Middle School, Sonagara, Block Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.). 5. It is further submitted that after the petitioner joined at his transferred place of posting, a dispute arose between him and another teacher of the same school, namely Smt. Sweeti Singh, who teaches Science and Maths. Owing to the said dispute, she allegedly became annoyed and lodged a false and motivated complaint, levelling serious allegations that the petitioner had molested 13 minor students. Learned counsel submits that Smt. Sweeti Singh and her husband are influential persons and, with the ulterior motive of preventing the petitioner from continuing at his place of posting, the complaint was engineered before respondent No. 2, the Block Education Officer. 6. Pursuant thereto, the Block Development Officer, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.), alleging that a complaint had been made by 13 minor girl students of Government Middle School, Sonagara, to the Collector, Surajpur, accusing the petitioner of inappropriate behaviour. An enquiry team was thereafter constituted, which visited the school on 26.11.2024 and submitted a report stating that the allegations were prima facie true. On the basis of the said enquiry report, a written report was lodged by the Block Development Officer before the SHO, Bhatgaon, seeking registration of 4 an FIR against the petitioner and one Smt. Anita Bek, the In-charge Principal, for allegedly failing to report the complaint. 7. Learned counsel further submits that Police Station Bhatgaon thereafter registered offences against the petitioner under Sections 74, 75, 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and commenced investigation. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court in MCRCA No. 1452 of 2024, wherein interim protection was granted vide order dated 16.12.2024, followed by grant of anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.01.2025. He further contended that the petitioner has throughout rendered his services diligently and honestly. His promotion and subsequent transfer orders clearly demonstrate that his service record has been unblemished and untarnished. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled by the students are vague, omnibus, and bereft of particulars such as date, time, or specific incident, and therefore do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. After recording the statements of the students under Section 164 of the CrPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 74, 75, 79 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that although the complaint refers to 13 minor girl students, only two students have made general and non-specific allegations; five students did not appear; and 5 the remaining students have not made any incriminating statement against the petitioner. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supported the impugned proceedings. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. A careful examination of the FIR, the enquiry report, and the statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are conspicuously vague and lack material particulars. None of the statements disclose the date, time, place, or manner of the alleged incident so as to attract the essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 79 and 3(5) of the BNS or Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 12. Significantly, though the complaint initially refers to 13 minor girl students, only two students have made general allegations, which are devoid of specificity. The remaining students have either not appeared or have not supported the prosecution case. Such omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute the offences alleged. 13. It is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue where the allegations are inherently improbable, vague, and do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 6 Supp (1) SCC 335, has authoritatively held that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings. 14. Further, the material on record indicates a prior dispute between the petitioner and another teacher of the same institution, lending credence to the petitioner’s contention that the criminal proceedings are actuated by mala fide intent. 15. Continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings, in the absence of cogent and specific allegations, would amount to abuse of the process of law and would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner, who is a government servant with a long and otherwise unblemished service record. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR and consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, pending against the petitioner under Sections 74, 75, 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.), are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan