AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)
Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.35 dated 09.03.2026 under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Bhupani, Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
FIR was lodged on complaint of Major General Dr. Yogesh Chaudhary alleging that Miss Reetu Francis was employed as Principal in Lingaya’s Public School, Faridabad in July, 2023. She resigned on 22.08.2025 and was holding a position of fiduciary relationship and trust. Pursuant to an internal audit, multiple complaints of parents and staff and a preliminary inquiry conducted by the school management, it came to light that Ms. Reetu Francis committed serious cognizable and non-bailable offences, including cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of funds and forgery etc. while holding the post. The criminal conduct was described as under:
Misappropriation of school funds:
Ms. Reetu Francis collected fee and other monetary contributions directly from students, parents and failed to deposit the sums into the accounts department of the school. Approximately ₹4,90,000/- were misappropriated indicating fraudulent and dishonest intent.
ii) Misappropriation of funds:
Ms. Reetu Francis received money on account of scrap sales, ID card, Diary student fee, totalling ₹50,000/- approximately and fees of two students namely Vanshika Tyagi and Krish Raj of Class XII via cash and UPI amounting to ₹40,000/- and ₹35,000/-, which she did not deposit in the accounts department.
iii) Falsification of records and forgery:
Ms. Reetu Francis fabricated bills and false supporting documents to show purchase of books, washing machine, pedestal fans and wireless mics through money received from scrap disposal. However, the said articles were never received by the school indicating falsification of records and forgery.
iv) Evasion, non-cooperation and Absconding:
On being confronted with the preliminary audit findings Ms. Reetu Francis tendered her resignation on 22.08.2025 and had been absent from the school without authorization since 25.08.2025. Despite repeated notices and communication from the School management and Internal Inquiry Committee, she failed to appear and willfully obstructed the fact-finding process.
It was further stated that the Internal Inquiry of the school found that misappropriation and financial loss caused by Ms. Reetu Francis amounted to ₹6,50,000/-. Inquiry was under progress and more such financial misappropriation was coming to light which would later be conveyed. It was prayed that FIR be registered against Ms. Reetu Francis.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an educational professional with unblemished career. She served as Principal of Lingaya’s Public School, Faridabad w.e.f. July, 2023. During her tenure, she raised voice against matters of great public importance including lapsed fire safety and hygiene certificate displayed on website of the school, admission of non-attending students in violation of norms, deployment of unqualified staff to teach students and chronic non-payment of salary to the staff. Petitioner was coerced into resigning on 22.08.2025 amidst threats of false criminal case. During her tenure, not a single allegation was levelled against her at any point of time and the FIR was lodged soon after her resignation. Inquiry was initiated against her without supplying the required documents, in violation of rules. There was unexplained delay of six months in lodging the FIR. The FIR was nothing but a counterblast to the concerns raised by the petitioner against the school authorities. Offences under Section 316(2) and 318 (4) BNS, as per settled law, could not coexist. No ingredients of the offence either under Section 316(2) or 318(4) were made out even if the contents of the FIR were accepted as correct. The sale of scrap for ₹32,997/- was made with prior approval of the Chancellor of the respondent-Institution and the proceeds were utilized for making purchase of books, pedestal fans etc. Fee was directly accepted from two students as the Accounts Department of the school was not functioning at the relevant time but was later deposited. Amounts collected from the attachment schools were also handed over to Mr. Jitender, Accountant of the respondent-Institution. Required explanations were given to the Investigating Agency, much prior to registration of FIR but were not considered or acted upon. The respondent-school had been changing the figure of alleged misappropriation. The criminal process was used as a retaliatory device rather than genuine vindication of offence. The case rested on documentary and accounting records, which were not ever produced before the police. The FIR was legally unsustainable, mala fide, counterblast, intended to silence the petitioner and was gross abuse of the process of law. Investigation was going on for the last six months but final report was not submitted. The Investigating Agency was acting under the influence of the school authorities. Prayer for quashing of FIR was made.
Law is fairly well-settled that inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as where the allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable or fail to disclose any cognizable offence. While examining the FIR/complaint, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. If a prima facie case is made out, disclosing the ingredients of the offence(s) alleged against the accused, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. At this stage, the Court must believe the averments and the allegations in the complaint to be true and correct.
Whether or not the allegations against the petitioner are false and counterblast to the voice raised by her against the school authorities relating to fire safety, admission of non-attending students and deployment of unqualified staff are disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in these proceedings. Adjudication of the questions requires appreciation of evidence, upon examination of witnesses and their cross-examination. The FIR records that offences came to light upon preliminary audit findings. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Even though, offences under Section 316 and 318 BNS cannot co-exist, the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence(s). The invoices placed on record by the petitioner (Annexures P-6 to P-28) cannot be relied upon in these proceedings to hold that the FIR is a result of mala fide and has been lodged with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the petitioner. At this stage, when investigation is on-going, the Court cannot examine the correctness of allegations in the FIR or weigh the pros and cons of prosecution case. Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised when there are direct specific allegations against the petitioner. It is not that the allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of cognizable offence(s). Nor can it be said from a reading of the FIR that even if the allegations are taken as true, no case is made out.
The observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016, also need to be referred as under:-
“It is a firmly established principle that, while examining a petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court must refrain from conducting a mini-trial or undertaking a detailed evaluation of the evidence. The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as where the allegations in the FIR are patently absurd, inherently improbable, or fail to disclose any cognizable offence. When the FIR or complaint, on its face, discloses the basic ingredients of a cognizable offence, the appropriate course is to allow the process of investigation and trial to continue, rather than prematurely terminating the prosecution at an interlocutory stage. Interference at this stage would not only impede the investigative process but also defeat the very object of criminal justice.”
In C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar And Others 2026 INSC 39, following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court would be relevant:
“22.The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised with great caution. This Court in catena of judgments has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping the function of a trial court or conducting a mini-trial when disputed factual questions attend the maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
24….. it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be more cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations made. The High Court must only consider whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or not and must not be concerned with the reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of the evidence.
31.It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations require adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law……”
Case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Pending applications, if any stand disposed of.