Back
Rules No Express Bar on FIR Over Fake SC Certificate Procurement
The has dismissed a challenging the of an FIR alleging fraudulent procurement and use of a Scheduled Caste certificate, holding that there is no on the police registering a complaint in such cases. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, presiding over the single bench, refused to quash FIR No. 703/2026, registered on , against petitioner Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy.
The Challenge: of Criminal Proceedings
The petitioner sought to question the propriety of the criminal prosecution, arguing that the complaint—lodged by an advocate—contravened the procedure prescribed under . The petitioner contended that only the certificate issuing authority could file such a complaint under the rules, rendering the FIR bad in law.
Petitioner's Arguments: Procedural Irregularity and Reliance on Precedent
, appearing for the petitioner via video conference, relied on . He submitted that the provision makes it punishable for any person to furnish false information, misrepresent facts, suppress material information, or produce documents procured through forgery to obtain a caste certificate—but only if the certificate issuing authority files a complaint under Rule 7. He further argued that the alleged forged certificate was never used by the petitioner and had been surrendered to the concerned authority.
In support of his contention, Mr. Datta placed reliance on the 's judgment in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 581, which addresses the charge of forgery against a person who is not the maker of the document.
State's Stand: No Statutory Embargo
Opposing the plea, submitted that there was no statutory bar preventing action on a complaint that disclosed a . He argued that the provisions of the 1994 Act and the 1995 Rules did not create any embargo on initiating criminal proceedings, and the police were well within their rights to investigate.
Court's Analysis: No Express Bar, Investigation Can Continue
The court examined the complaint and noted that it alleged fraudulent procurement and usage of a Scheduled Caste certificate, details of which were clearly mentioned. It further observed that the issue had earlier been brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bongaon, and the Assistant Commissioner for Reservation & Ex-Officio Assistant Secretary to the , following which the SDO cancelled the certificate issued in the petitioner's favour.
The court held: “Notwithstanding Rule 7 of the said Rules of 1995 that certificate issuing authority shall file complaint against any person in the event of furnishing false information, misrepresentation of fact, suppression of material information and/ or production of document resorting to act of forgery, there is no express bar in lodging complaint in the case of procurement of fake Caste Certificate.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court further observed that since the investigation was ongoing, it was not the appropriate stage to determine whether the charge of forgery could be sustained against a person who was not the maker of the allegedly forged document, referencing the Sheila Sebastian precedent. It also noted that the petitioner had an available by approaching the appropriate forum for , should she apprehend arrest.
Final Decision: Petition Dismissed with Liberty
In light of the above, the court declined to interfere with the and dismissed it. However, it clarified that the order would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum for pursuing any available remedy, including seeking . The court also took on record a communication from the Inspector-in-Charge of , filed on the day of the hearing.
