SHASHI SUDAN vs UT OF J AND K TH POLICE STATION, ECONOMICS WING, JAMMU

Serial No. 95

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

CRM(M) No.1266/2025
CrlM No. 2352/2025
CrlM No. 2496/2025



Reserved on: 05.08 .2026
Pronounced on: 29.08.2026
Uploaded on: 29.08.2026
Operative part or
full judgment: Full
Dr. Shashi Sudan
W/O Dr. Sudesh Chander
R/O 26-A, Bakshi Nagar,
Jammu


…....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Adv with
Ms. Avantika, Advocate &
Mr. Ronak Gupta, Advocate.
Vs.



Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
through Police Station Economic Offences Wing,
Jammu.

.…. Respondents
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Advocate.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT


1. This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0057/2023 dated 01.07.2023, for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of
RPC and Section 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, registered at
Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Jammu, at the instance of complainant-
Manu Gupta, Charge sheet No.45/2025 for offences 420/511, 465, 468, 471 RPC
dated 01.12.2025 arising out of FIR and order of cognizance taken by the court of
learned Electricity Magistrate on 01.12.2025.

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 1 of 9

2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the cognizance
order, petitioner has assailed the same on following grounds:
(i) that the impugned order is bad, both on facts and law;
(ii) that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR do not constitute
the alleged offences against the petitioner;
(iii) that the allegation that petitioner has forged her date of birth
certificate is false, as admittedly, the correction in the date of birth
certificate has been carried out by the State Board of School
Education, Jammu;
(iv) that no offence of cheating alleged in the impugned FIR, is made out
which justifies the registration of impugned FIR against the petitioner;
(v) that the petition deserves to be set aside and quashed on the ground
that the impugned FIR raises disputed questions of facts, which are
contrary to record and legal position;
(vi) that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not satisfied in the present
case; and
(vii) that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law by the
complainant and is required to be set aside.
3. Pursuant to notice, reply stands filed by the respondent on 28.01.2026
asserting that petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts, which cannot be
decided in writ petition; that the petitioner has not approached this court with
clean hands and there is suppression as well as concealment of material facts
from this court; that the scope of interference by this Court in investigation is
very narrow, therefore, the powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised
very sparingly; that the parameters laid in case ‘Ch. Bhajan Lal V. State of
Haryana’ are not attracted in the case.
4. Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Avantika and Mr.
Ronak Gupta, Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would argue that

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 2 of 9

registration of the impugned FIR reflects the abuse of process of law, to wreak
vengeance due to personal reasons; that allegation against the petitioner that she has
forged her date of birth certificate but fact of the matter remains that due to clerical
mistake, there was an error of year in her date of birth as mentioned in her
matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Jammu; that,
since she was minor at that time, as such, her father namely Sh. Sham Lal Sharma,
applied for the correction/rectification of her date of birth in her matriculation
certificates from 08.04.1965 to 08.04.1964, whereafter, the J&K Board of School
Education, rectified her date of birth as 08.04.1964; that no offence under Sections
463 and 464 RPC is made out in the present case; that no false document is
furnished by the petitioner as the correctness of the document has been proved
during investigation; that the petitioner is not the maker of the document; that
perusal of charge sheet would show that it does not satisfy the statutory ingredients
of forgery, such as, the petitioner made or altered any document, dishonest affixing
of signatures or electronic signatures, causing any person to sign under deception,
or fabrication of any electronic record by the petitioner.
5. He would further argue that proceedings against the petitioner are nothing
but an abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed; that there is no material
suggesting that the petitioner deceived any authority or obtained any benefit
through misrepresentation; that the impugned FIR and Charge sheet are non-est in
law in view of absence of any allegation constituting cheating; that the petitioner
has applied for correction of her date of birth in the year 1981, much prior to her
entry into public service; that the failure of the Board to issue the corrected
Matriculation Diploma cannot be attributed to the petitioner nor can she be
prosecuted for the lapse on the part of the Board; that the Govt. has accepted the
change of date of birth of the petitioner, therefore, the allegation that there is loss to
the State Exchequer pales into insignificance. In support of his contention he relied

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 3 of 9

upon, judgment of Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian V. R. Jawaharaj reported as
(2018) 7 SCC 58, so as to contend that, no offence under Sections 467/468 RPC is
attracted. Finally, it is prayed that the impugned FIR, Charge sheet and the order of
cognizance issued by the learned Magistrate be quashed and the writ petition be
allowed.
6. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG assisted by Ms. Nisha Kangotra,
Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, ex adverso, would argue that the
petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts and serious triable allegations,
which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court, under its extraordinary
jurisdiction; that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. She
further submits that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional
categories laid down in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case warranting interference; that the
contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be examined in proceedings under
Section 528 BNSS, so as to appreciate evidence, as determination of credibility of
witnesses and adjudication of disputed facts are matters exclusively within the
domain of the trial court.
7. She further argued that during the course of investigation, it has come to fore
that petitioner, in order to get admission in MBBS Course, used her date of birth as
08.04.1964, however, at the time of preparation of service book, she dishonestly
with mala fide intention, misrepresented her date of birth as 08.04.1965, in order to
get one extra year in service; that the petitioner’s signatures on the Service Book,
where she filled her date of birth as 08.04.1965 and on admission form of MBBS
course & PG course, along with specimen signatures of petitioner were sent to FSL
Jammu for expert opinion, the opinion obtained affirmed the signatures of the
petitioner, thereby, showing that she, in order to get one extra year of service,

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 4 of 9

wrongfully entered her date of birth as 08.04.1965; that this act of the petitioner is
an attempt to cause wrongful loss to State Exchequer and wrongful gain to the
petitioner; that the petitioner’s reliance on subsequent administrative event such as
her superannuation on 30.04.2026 or issuance of a routine Vigilance Clearance
Certificate do not wipe out pre-existing criminal culpability; that a full dressed trial
is required in this case so as to bring the petitioner to justice. Finally, it is prayed
that the writ petition be dismissed, for the afore-stated grounds and the interim
protection/stay order be vacated.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered rival submissions and
perused the file.
9. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the perusal of the impugned FIR,
are that a written complaint was lodged by one Manu Gupta alleging that the
petitioner- Dr. Shashi Sudan Sharma, Incharge Principal Government Medical
College Jammu tampered her age in documents to get undue advantage for
getting admission into MBBS course at GMC Jammu; that from the documents,
it is clear that she was under age for MBBS admission as per Medical Council of
India directives; that as per her recorded DOB as 08.04.1965, she was not at all
eligible to appear for MBBS Entrance Examination in the year 1981; that
Medical Council of India clearly prescribed that to be eligible for MBBS course
st
in India, the candidate must be 17 years on December 31 of that year, however,
as per declared age, the petitioner was only 16 years and 8 months till December
st
31 , 1981, when she joined MBBS course; that there is a clear violation of the
laid down rules; that she has not only conducted a big fraud, but had also taken
away the rights of another suitable candidate; that such persons have no right to
occupy responsible chair of Principal of GMC, Jammu, a premier institute of the
State.

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 5 of 9

10. On receipt of the afore-stated complaint, Crime Branch of Police
conducted a preliminary enquiry and it was found that the petitioner is having
two date of birth certificates in her favour and she had cheated the government
by forging/tampering her date of birth, while applying for MBBS course, she
submitted her date of birth as 08.04.1964, whereas, during filling up the service
book, she reflected her date of birth as 08.04.1965; that for offences punishable
U/Ss 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC r/w 5(1)(d) PC Act, 2006, a
formal case was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 57/2023, for the
commission of afore-stated offences, in Crime Branch (now EOW) Police
Station, Jammu and investigation culminated into laying of charge sheet vide
Challan No. 45/2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections
420/511/465/468/471 RPC, which is sub judice before the court of learned
Electricity Magistrate, Jammu, since 01.12.2025, for trial.
11. Perusal of the record would show that initially the Investigating Officer
vide communication dated 22.08.2025 had recommended the closure of the case
as not admitted, however, on approval of the Crime Headquarters, charge sheet
was produced.
12. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is
well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet
should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where
the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not ‘prima facie’
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet
may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
In the judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, State of Haryana and others Vs.

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 6 of 9

Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR
or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or
proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare
cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the cases of R.
Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta & Others , 2009 ( 1) SCC 516 , Rupan Deol Bajaj vs.
K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059 , Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
( 1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E
Ltd. & Ors , 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 , wherein it was reiterated that if a prima facie
case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash
the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions
of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be conducted, invoking
inherent jurisdiction by this court.
13. The case, against the petitioner, herein, registered on the complaint of
one-Manu Gupta, is that the petitioner had used her two date of birth certificates,
one indicating 08.04.1964 as date of birth, whereas in the other, the date of birth
recorded is 08.04.1965. The petitioner, as per record, had been selected for
undergoing MBBS course, on the basis of the certificate indicating 08.04.1964
as her date of birth, due to which, she could be above 17 years of age, as was
prerequisite for applying to the Entrance Examination for MBBS course.

14. Petitioner, however, after completion of her studies, at the time of entry
into service, recorded her DOB as 08.04.1965 based on Matriculation Diploma.
This certificate of the petitioner, indicating date of birth as 08.04.1965, was got
reviewed, by the petitioner from J&K State Board of School Education
(JKBOSE), Jammu, who corrected it, indicating, her date of birth, as April 1964,
which was accepted by the Govt. of J&K. Had she been born on this date, she

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 7 of 9

would not have been qualified to be a candidate to appear in Entrance Test for
MBBS course, in which, she appeared and got qualified, therefore, she was a
beneficiary of the certificate, indicating her date of birth as 08.04.1964. The
petitioner’s case is that her date of birth was corrected, way-back in 1981, much
prior to her joining in the Government job, as Medical Officer, in the year 1987,
therefore, it cannot be alleged that she had forged the documents, in any manner,
so as to get undue benefit with the change of her date of birth, allegedly for
continuing for one more year in her service as Principal, GMC, Jammu,
especially, when her revised date of birth by the JKBOSE had also been
accepted by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir vide Order No. 666-
JK(HME) of 2024 dated 09.10.2024.
15. Since the petitioner had used both the certificates as beneficiary, firstly,
the date of birth- 08.04.1964 for getting selection for undergoing MBBS course
and, later, indicating 08.04.1965 as her date of birth to continue in job for a
period of one more year, the conflicting stands taken by the petitioner or on her
behalf, for which, she was the beneficiary were, thus, not compatible to her
innocence in the case. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of J&K Police,
earlier, known as Crime Branch, had investigated the case in a professional
manner and laid the charge sheet, therefore, the same cannot be stated to be an
abuse of process of law, in any manner. It will be in the interest of justice that
the petitioner faces the trial in a case, for which, charge sheet has already been
laid, after investigation of the case, so as to bring forth the truth in the matter.
16. For the foregoing reasons, observations made hereinabove and the legal
position on the subject discussed hereinabove, the petition, seeking quashment
of the charge sheet No.45/2025 for the commission of offences punishable under

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 8 of 9

Sections 420/511/465/468/471 RPC arising out of FIR No. 0057/2023 registered
at P/S EOW, Jammu and sub judice before the court of learned Electricity
Magistrate, Jammu, is, thus, found to be without any merit and substance and is
liable to be rejected.
17. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected
application(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand revoked.




Jammu:
29.08.2026
Raj kumar


(M.A Chowdhary)

Judge


Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.
Raj Kumar
2026.08.29 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM(M) No. 1266/2025 Page 9 of 9