Back
Qulsum Akhter's plea to quash FIR for fraudulent RBA certificate dismissed by High Court
Introduction
The has dismissed a petition filed by Qulsum Akhter seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the , , alleging in obtaining a Resident of Backward Area (RBA) certificate and using it to secure public employment. Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the single bench, refused to exercise under , holding that were made out.
Case Background
The petitioner, Qulsum Akhter, was selected as Assistant Professor in Biochemistry under the RBA category in based on a certificate issued by in . A complaint by Altaf Ahmad Ganai alleged that the petitioner fraudulently obtained the certificate. Investigation revealed that Akhter, originally a resident of Srinagar, married Riyaz Ahmad Mir of Handwara in and obtained the RBA certificate in , claiming residence in a backward area for only two years, whereas required 15 years of residence. The investigation further found that the certificate was issued based on false reports by revenue officials and that the renewed certificate was forged.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after a 12-year delay and that no offences were disclosed. argued that the EOW lacked jurisdiction under since the alleged offences did not fall within its assigned subjects. He also argued that any illegality in the certificate could be remedied through , not , citing the precedent in
. The respondent investigating agency and complainant countered that the FIR disclosed and that the investigation had established a involving revenue officials and the petitioner.
Legal Analysis
Justice Dhar rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that
fall under
"
"
assigned to the EOW under SO 232. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is tested at the stage of FIR registration, not based on offences ultimately established. On merits, the court distinguished the case from
Indira Thakur
, noting that the present case involved false information, incorrect reports, and a forged renewal certificate, rather than a mere erroneous interpretation of rules. The court found evidence of (), (), and in the renewed certificate.
Key Observations
The court observed,
“The jurisdiction of an investigating agency is not dependent upon the nature of the offences that may ultimately be established after investigation of the case but it is dependent upon the nature of offences which are disclosed from the .”
On the merits, it stated,
“It cannot be stated that it is only a case of violation of rules but it appears to be a case of obtainment of the RBA certificate in a fraudulent manner.”
Court's Decision
Dismissing the petition, the court directed the return of the to the investigating agency, allowing the investigation to proceed. The ruling reinforces that can lie even when exist, especially where and are alleged.
