Patna HC Quashes FIR Against Professor Falsely Accused Of Failing To Join Exam Evaluation Centre, Imposes 25K Cost On State Board For 'Harassment'

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad observed, “This Court is of the considered opinion that lodging of the FIR in the given circumstances is nothing but a tool of sheer harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner is a Professor and is facing the investigation for the last four years in a case in which there is no criminality involved.”

The above ruling came in a plea by a Professor of Mathematics in R.P.S. College, Chakeyaj, Mahnar in the district of Vaishali seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offenses under Section 353 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981.

The FIR was lodged by the Block Education Officer, Hajipur (West) (respondent no. 5).

The petitioner asserted that he had not been formally notified to undertake evaluation work following the Annual Examination of Intermediate in 2019.

It was argued that in his role as the Professor-in-charge of the college during that period, he was not obligated to participate in the evaluation process, emphasizing that he had not received any official request from the competent authority.

Under the BSEB Regulation, 1964, the petitioner highlighted that if a Head Examiner or appointed Examiner declined the appointment, they were required to return it with valid reasons. The petitioner claimed ignorance of his appointment as an Evaluator, providing a valid rationale for not engaging in the evaluation of answer sheets.

The petitioner contended that the Block Education Officer's decision to file an FIR against him lacked merit, as there was no criminality involved in the alleged actions.

He further argued that the application of Section 353 IPC by the Police Station's SHO was unwarranted, as the section pertains to assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty—an action not applicable to the petitioner's case.

Petitioner emphasized that the FIR did not suggest any assault or use of criminal force, and questioned the justification for the FIR, accusing the authorities of needlessly criminalizing his non-participation in the evaluation work, causing mental distress and harassment to him.

The petitioner asserted that the FIR had subjected him to over four years of unwarranted harassment, creating an unjust criminal stigma. He argued that this misuse of power by the official respondents made the State accountable for compensating him for the incurred costs and damages.

The State asserted that, based on the allegations outlined in the Block Education Officer's letter, Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) would not be applicable.

The State also acknowledged that the situation did not involve physical assault or the use of criminal force against a public servant with the intention of obstructing the discharge of their duties.

Having heard the arguments, the Court observed that the lodging of the FIR under Section 353 IPC was the result of unmindful misuse of power by the Station House Officer of the Sadar Hajipur Police Station at the instance of the Joint Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination (Higher Secondary) BSEB, Patna.

The Court further observed that on the instruction of the Controller of the Examination, BSEB, the District Education Officer, Vaishali had instructed the Block Development Officer to lodge the FIR.

The Court held that being outside the BSEB's employment, the petitioner had no reason to participate in the evaluation of answer sheets.

It was emphasized that the petitioner had not received the appointment letter and that there was no explicit statement confirming the dispatch and service of the letter to the petitioner. The Court also questioned the obligation placed on the petitioner to check the BSEB website for information.

Accordingly, the plea was allowed and the BSEB was slapped with a cost of Rs 25,000 for their role in the harassment faced by the petitioner.

“Since the petitioner has faced harassment and had to approach this Court for quashing of the FIR, this Court deems it just and proper to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) upon the BSEB. The BSEB shall pay the cost amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today,” the Court concluded while allowing the writ application.

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Atul Shankar, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3

For the BSEB: Mr. Ajay, Advocate, Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1620 of 2022

Case Title: Amit Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 12