Assistant Professor Accused by Ex-Mother-in-Law of DESM Certificate Fraud: P&H HC Refuses to Quash FIR

Petitioner No. 1, the daughter of an ex-serviceman, obtained a DESM certificate in 2016 and was later selected as an Assistant Professor under that category.

Following her divorce from the son of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 3 alleged that the petitioners had fraudulently obtained and used the certificate to secure her employment by concealing relevant information.

After two earlier complaints by respondent No. 3 were found false on inquiry, he filed a complaint before the Area Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61 of the BNS.

On 3 August 2026, the Magistrate allowed an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and directed the police to register an FIR and investigate; an FIR under Section 318(4) BNS followed.

The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint, the Magistrate’s order and the FIR under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the order was non-speaking and that the proviso to Section 223 BNSS had not been complied with.

Section 175(3) BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) CrPC) empowers a Magistrate to direct police investigation, but requires the Magistrate to apply judicial mind; the order need not contain extensive reasons, but should reflect that application of mind.

The Court relied on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287; Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639; Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439; and Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 AIR Supreme Court 3427, on the need for judicial application of mind when directing investigation.

It also relied on Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 (2) RCR (Criminal) 729, for the principle that a higher court should not interfere with an investigation order under Section 156(3) unless it lacks legal foundation or is perverse.

The proviso to Section 223 BNSS applies before cognizance is taken in a private complaint; an order directing registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) does not itself amount to taking cognizance.

The High Court acknowledged that the Magistrate’s order was brief, but found that it recorded the complainant’s request, stated that the complaint’s contents had been considered, and concluded that police investigation was required.

In light of the principles governing Section 175(3), the Court held that the order sufficiently reflected application of mind and disclosed no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

The State’s affidavit also stated that an action taken report had been sought and submitted, which reported that employment had been obtained using the DESM certificate while suppressing relevant facts.

The Court rejected the Section 223 objection because the impugned direction concerned registration and investigation of an FIR, not cognizance of a private complaint.

It dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the complaint, order and FIR, and disposed of all pending applications.