J&K High Court refuses to quash FIR against Assistant Professor accused of fraudulently obtaining RBA certificate for public appointment

The petitioner challenged FIR No. 9/2025 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

The FIR alleged that the petitioner, selected as Assistant Professor in Biochemistry under the RBA category, had fraudulently obtained an RBA certificate from the Tehsil Office, Handwara, dated 27 June 2013

The investigation revealed that she had married a resident of Handwara on 7 July 2011 and had obtained the certificate within two years of marriage, despite the applicable rules requiring 15 years’ residence in the backward area

The petitioner allegedly used the certificate to secure public employment in 2019

The investigating agency further found that the certificate had been facilitated through false reports and misuse of official position by revenue officials, and that the renewed certificate and related dispatch records were forged or tampered with

The petitioner contended that the FIR was delayed by approximately 12 years, that the dispute was merely administrative and remediable through cancellation or appeal proceedings under the Reservation Act, and that the Economic Offences Wing lacked jurisdiction

Whether the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Srinagar, had jurisdiction under Notification SO 232 dated 9 May 2022 to register and investigate the FIR

Whether the allegations and investigation material disclosed cognizable offences of cheating, forgery, conspiracy and criminal misconduct, or whether the matter constituted only a violation of the rules governing RBA certificates

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings

The Court applied Notification SO 232 dated 9 May 2022, under which the Economic Offences Wing was constituted as a police station with jurisdiction over, inter alia, offences relating to documents and property marks, corresponding to Chapter XVIII of the IPC/RPC, including Sections 467, 468 and 471

It held that the investigating agency’s jurisdiction depends on the offences disclosed in the FIR at the time of registration, and not on the offences ultimately established after investigation

The Court considered Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC, Section 167 RPC, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to allegations of deception, forged documents, conspiracy, preparation of incorrect official records and abuse of official position

It also applied SRO 294 dated 21 November 2005 and Rule 21(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, which required a person claiming backward-area status to establish residence in the area for at least 15 years and actual residence there

The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita may not be exercised to quash proceedings where the FIR and case diary disclose cognizable offences supported by prima facie material

The Court distinguished Indira Thakur v. State, CRMC No. 144/2015, decided on 17 October 2022, where the certificate had resulted from a bona fide and legally possible interpretation of the rules, without allegations of corruption, false information or forgery

The Court held that the FIR fell within the Economic Offences Wing’s jurisdiction because Sections 467, 468 and 471 RPC, as disclosed in the FIR, concerned documents and property marks and therefore came within Entry 3 of the Annexure to SO 232

On the merits, the Court found that the case was not limited to an erroneous administrative decision or a simple breach of reservation rules.

The petitioner allegedly obtained the RBA certificate despite satisfying only approximately two years’ residence in Handwara, relied on false information and incorrect revenue reports, and used the certificate to obtain public employment

Although forgery of the original 2013 certificate was not conclusively established because it had been issued by the competent authority, the alleged false claims and reports prima facie attracted Section 420 RPC, while the involvement of public officials supported the allegations under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

The renewed certificate, however, was found prima facie forged because it did not bear the concerned Tehsildar’s signatures and the dispatch register had allegedly been tampered with

These circumstances distinguished the case from Indira Thakur and justified continuation of the criminal investigation and proceedings

The alleged delay did not warrant quashing in light of the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation.

It further held that the FIR and case diary disclosed prima facie cognizable offences, including cheating, criminal conspiracy, forgery in relation to the renewed certificate, and abuse of official position by the concerned public servants

The petition seeking quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was dismissed for lack of merit, and the Case Diary was directed to be returned to the investigating agency