Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Subhas Chandra Patra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 9315 of 2019
Decided On : 24-08-2023
WRIT PETITION - FORGED DOCUMENT - FRAUD - ADVERSE PRESUMPTION - CRIMINAL TRIAL - JURISDICTION - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - EXPERT OPINION - AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENT - SIGNATURE - HANDWRITING - TRIAL ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT - CRIMINAL CASE - PERJURY - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Headmaster of a school, alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of school funds and lodged a complaint against the private respondents before the school authority and the police. Despite complaints, no action was taken. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to proceed with criminal cases. The petitioner then approached the District Inspector of Schools (DI) for resumption of his duty, who directed the school to take necessary action. The school allowed the petitioner to resume his duty, but the private respondents continued to cause disturbance. The petitioner filed another writ petition seeking resumption of his duty and police protection. The respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition alleging that the document relied on by the petitioner was forged. The Court referred the matter to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for an enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The CID report found that the petitioner failed to produce the original document and that the expert opinion was that the signature on the document was not that of the alleged signatory. The Court held that a prima facie view of fraud had been established and that a properly constituted criminal trial was required.
Issues: 1. Whether the document relied on by the petitioner was forged. 2. Whether the petitioner had practiced fraud on the Court by using a forged document. 3. Whether the Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction in the presence of a prima facie view of fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to produce the original document and the expert opinion that the signature on the document was not that of the alleged signatory created a doubt in the mind of the Court as to the authenticity of the document. 2. The Court held that the respondents had made out a clear case of fraud by alleging that the petitioner had knowingly manufactured a document by forging the signature of Uday Das and had used it before the Court on oath. 3. The Court held that it would not exercise its equitable jurisdiction when a prima facie view of fraud had been opined by the expert and that a properly constituted criminal trial was required.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs and directed the CID to lodge an FIR within four weeks. The CID was directed to investigate the issue and the State was directed to take all further steps in the matter strictly in accordance with law. The Court also directed that if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial, he would be at liberty to avail of his remedy on the self-same issue in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
1. This is a hearing matter upon affidavits.
Facts:
2. The petitioner, at all material time had been discharging his duty as Headmaster of one Bora Junior High School (for short, the school), District Paschim Midnapore. Alleging diverse mismanagement in the affairs of the school, including misappropriation of school funds, the petitioner lodged complaint against the private respondents before the authority of the school. Criminal complaint was also lodged by the petitioner. The private respondents also resisted the petitioner from attending the school and discharging his duties as Headmaster of the school.
3. Since the school authorities and/or other appropriate authorities did not take any step as per the complaints of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the previous writ petition being WP No. 23204 (W) of 2017. A Coordinate Bench by its order dated September 11, 2017, Annexure P-2 at page 18 to the writ petition, had disposed of the said writ petition with the following observation:
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ application are deemed to have been not admitted by the respondents.”
4. Pursuant to the observation made by the coordinate bench as stated above, the petitioner submitted its application before the Jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools (SE) (for short, the DI) with a prayer for resumption of duty of the petitioner at the school, as the petitioner was resisted to discharge his duties as Headmaster of the school. The DI by its order dated January 04, 2018, Annexure P-3 at page 20 to the writ petition, directed the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School to take necessary action or to take redress.
5. The petitioner contended that in terms of the said direction of the DI, the Managing Committee allowed the petitioner to resume his duty and to join the school as Headmaster of the school by making necessary endorsement on January 05, 2018, Annexure P-4 at page 21 to the writ petition, on a communication of even date made and signed by the petitioner describing himself as Headmaster of the School on the letter head of the school addressed to the Secretary of the School. Since the private respondents continued to act causing disturbance and resistance to run the affair of the school smoothly, the petitioner again made a complaint dated July 12, 2018 before the DI and the DI by its communication dated July 18, 2018 Annexure P-6 at page 23 to the writ petition, directed the Secretary of the School to take steps in the matter.
6. The petitioner then by his communication dated July 20, 2018 written on the letter head of the school but signed by the petitioner, made a prayer before the Secretary of the School for allowing the petitioner to join the school, Annexure P-7 at page 24 to the writ petition. The petitioner, made a further complaint before the Police Authority since the office room of the Headmaster where from the petitioner used to discharge his duties was under lock and key Annexure P-8 at page 25 to the writ petition. The petitioner further lodged a complaint for the same reason dated January 23, 2019 before the District Administrative Authority Annexure P-10 at page 28 to the writ petition. Despite rep
A court exercising its equitable jurisdiction will not exercise such jurisdiction when a prima facie view of fraud has been opined by an expert and a properly constituted criminal trial is required.
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
An appointment secured through fraudulent documents is void ab initio, and no formal inquiry is required for cancellation; fraud vitiates all actions taken under such circumstances.
An appointment secured through fraudulent means, such as a forged educational certificate, is void ab initio, and the individual is not entitled to any employment benefits or protections under the la....
Fraudulent documentation undermines claims for educational qualifications, disallowing entitlement effects from misrepresentation; courts emphasize integrity in certification processes.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and must exclude claims born from fraud; necessary parties must be included for maintainability.
Absence during inspections does not prove student admissions are bogus; proper evidence must be considered before imposing liability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
