Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated without prior verification of social status certificates by the Scrutiny Committee as mandated by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. W. Mantaw, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This Criminal petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner, namely, Ms. Tiprami Manlong, praying for quashing the F.I.R., dated 01.04.2023 filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 before the Officer-in-Charge of Naharlagun Police Station. On the basis of which, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023 under Sections 465/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

3. It is pertinent to mention, herein, that though there were 9 (nine) respondents in this case and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, the first informants of the F.I.R., namely, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 did not appear in this criminal petition in spite of due service of notice on them.

4. The petitioner has mainly challenged the initiation of the criminal proceeding against her, on the basis of the impugned F.I.R., without following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Kumari Mahuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.“ reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241.

5. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:

(i) That on 01.04.2023, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 of this criminal petition had lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the present petitioner, namely, Ms. Tiprami Manlong, who is an original resident of Assam under Narayanpur Police Station in the District of Lakhimpur Assam, has used the privilege of Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) Certificate and got inducted as Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) (2021- 2022) in Arunachal Pradesh under APST reserved category, thereby, depriving the Scheduled Tribes (ST) of Arunachal Pradesh. It was prayed in the F.I.R. to register a forgery case against her under appropriate sections of law. Accordingly, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023, under Sections 465/468/471/420 of the IPC was registered and the Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station himself initiated the investigation of the case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after initiation of the investigation, the petitioner had received a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the Investigation Officer (I.O) and in pursuant to the same, she had submitted the original ST certificates as well as Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) certificate issued to her by the concerned authorities.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case of receipt of an allegation regarding the genuineness of an ST certificate, no criminal prosecution may be initiated without there being confirmation about the said allegation by the Committee prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra). He submits that a clear bar has been prescribed, in the said judgment, for any other proceeding, before any other authority, before receipt of the report of the committee regarding the falsity of the certificate obtained or the Social Status claimed by the petitioner. In that regard, apart from relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a decision of the coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of “Kishore Kumar Baishya and Anr. Vs. the State of Assam and Ors.” reported in 2019 (4) GLT 269.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as, in the instant case, the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on filing of the F.I.R. by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 by registration of the Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023 and conduct of investigation, thereafter, was not based on any report of the S