Chhattisgarh HC refuses relief to professor booked after non-Muslim students coerced to offer namaz at NSS camp

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently refused to quash a first incident report (FIR) and subsequent criminal proceedings against a professor booked in a case of coercing non-Muslim students to participate in offering namaz during a National Service Scheme (NSS) camp in Bilaspur [Dilip Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on April 15 declined to interfere with the FIR, charge sheet and the trial court’s cognizance order.

The Court observed that the investigation had already been completed and sufficient material has been collected to proceed against the accused, Dilip Jha.

“The charge-sheet indicates that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence warranting trial, and there is no conclusive proof at this stage that the proceedings were instituted with ulterior motives,” noted the Court.

It rejected Jha's contention that he had no operational role at the camp site and was not present during the alleged incident.

The case arose from a seven-day NSS camp organised by Guru Ghasidas Central University in March during which Muslim students were asked to offer namaz on stage on the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr. According to the complaint, other students were allegedly compelled to participate without their consent.

It was further alleged that those who objected were threatened with adverse consequences, including cancellation of certificates. Following a preliminary inquiry, the police registered an FIR and subsequently filed a charge sheet naming Jha, who served as a project coordinator, among the accused.

Jha argued that he had no operational role at the camp site and his implication was baseless and an abuse of the criminal process.

However, the State opposed the plea, submitting that the matter involved disputed questions of fact that must be tested during trial.

The Court agreed with the State and held that such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in a quashing plea.

“The petitioner’s contention regarding absence from the scene or administrative role is a matter that can be fully addressed during the trial through cross-examination and presentation of evidence. Interference at this stage would amount to pre-judging issues of fact and evidence, which the Court is not empowered to do,” observed the Court.

Relying on settled principles laid down in precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Mohammed Wajid v. State of UP, the Court reiterated that quashing of criminal proceedings is justified only in exceptional circumstances.

Finding no such exceptional grounds in the present case, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Advocate Arjit Tiwari represented accused Dilip Jha.

Government advocate Priyank Rathi represented the State and police.

[Read Order]