Doctor accused of using different dates of birth for MBBS eligibility and an extra year in service must face trial, J&K High Court rules

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 57/2023 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Jammu, the resultant Charge-sheet No. 45/2025, and the order taking cognizance dated 1 December 2025.

The case alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 RPC, originally including Sections 467 and 120-B RPC and Section 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006.

The allegation was that the petitioner used 8 April 1964 as her date of birth for obtaining eligibility and admission to the MBBS course in 1981, while recording 8 April 1965 in her service records, allegedly to secure an additional year of government service.

The petitioner contended that the discrepancy resulted from a clerical error and that the J&K State Board of School Education subsequently corrected her date of birth from 8 April 1965 to 8 April 1964.

During investigation, the petitioner’s signatures appearing on the service book, MBBS and postgraduate admission forms were sent for forensic examination, and the opinion reportedly confirmed her signatures.

Although the Investigating Officer initially recommended closure of the case, the charge-sheet was ultimately filed after approval by Crime Headquarters.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order disclosed a prima facie commission of the alleged offences so as to warrant quashing under Section 528 BNSS?

Whether the petitioner’s defence that the date-of-birth discrepancy was caused by a clerical error and subsequently corrected raised disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication at trial rather than in inherent jurisdiction?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law under the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while relying on the principles governing Section 482 CrPC.

It relied principally on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, which permits quashing in exceptional circumstances where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, but cautions that such power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

The Court also relied on R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., holding that criminal proceedings should not be quashed where the complaint or charge-sheet prima facie discloses the ingredients of an offence.

The Court further reiterated that disputed questions of fact, credibility of witnesses and appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be determined through a “mini-trial” in proceedings for quashing.

The Court held that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case requiring trial.

The petitioner had allegedly relied on the date of birth of 8 April 1964 for MBBS admission, since eligibility required the candidate to be at least 17 years old, but later recorded 8 April 1965 in her service records.

The Court considered her to be a beneficiary of both entries: the earlier date allegedly enabled her admission to the MBBS course, while the later date allegedly enabled her to continue in government service for an additional year.

Her explanation that the date of birth had been corrected by the Board in 1981, and that the correction was subsequently accepted by the Government, was treated as a factual defence that could not be conclusively adjudicated in the quashing proceedings.

The forensic confirmation of her signatures and the conflicting date-of-birth records further supported the existence of triable issues.

Consequently, the Court found that the proceedings could not be characterised as an abuse of process and that the truth should be determined through trial.

It held that the FIR and charge-sheet prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 420/511, 465, 468 and 471 RPC, and that the petitioner’s factual explanations could not be examined under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 57/2023, Charge-sheet No. 45/2025 and the cognizance order dated 1 December 2025 was dismissed, along with the connected applications.

Any interim direction was revoked.