Section 182 IPC cognizance requires a public servant’s complaint, not a police charge sheet.

Manoj Saha was engaged as a Sub-Assistant Engineer at Konnagar Municipality in 2008 and later applied for a regular post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, relying on a caste certificate issued in 2012.

After an objection to his caste status, the certificate was cancelled; following an inquiry into ancestral records, the competent authority confirmed his membership of the “Sunri” community and issued a fresh certificate in 2022.

Opposite Party No. 2 then lodged a complaint alleging that Saha had obtained a reserved appointment through a false caste certificate.

The police registered a case and filed a charge sheet under Sections 182, 417, 420 and 34 IPC, while recording that the allegations of forgery, personation and document tampering were not substantiated.

Saha sought quashing of the proceedings under Sections 482 and 401 CrPC.

1. Whether a court may take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC on a police charge sheet, despite the bar in Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC.

2. Whether a caste certificate issued and validated by the competent statutory authority may be disregarded at the threshold when considering a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

3. Whether receipt of salary for work performed can constitute cheating under Sections 417 or 420 IPC where the petitioner’s Scheduled Caste status has been verified and allegations of forgery and personation were not substantiated.

4. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process within the principles in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an administratively superior public servant; a police report under Section 173 CrPC does not satisfy that requirement (*State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh*; *Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab*).

Section 468(2)(b) CrPC provides a one-year limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year.

Under Sections 415, 417 and 420 IPC, cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, with Section 420 additionally requiring dishonest inducement to deliver property or valuable security (*Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar*; *VESA Holdings v. State of Kerala*; *Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh*).

The court also relied on Section 74 of the Evidence Act concerning public documents, *Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council* on considering unimpeachable public documents in Section 482 proceedings, and the categories for quashing stated in *Bhajan Lal*.

The court held that the Section 182 charge could not proceed on a police charge sheet, in the absence of the complaint required by Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC; it also found the prosecution initiated in 2022 for conduct alleged to have occurred in 2012–13 barred by limitation.

It treated the inquiry report and the 2022 caste certificate, supported by ancestral records and the State’s report, as public material confirming Saha’s Scheduled Caste status.

Since the investigation had not substantiated forgery or personation, and Saha had performed the work for which he received remuneration, the court found no prima facie dishonest inducement or deception to support Sections 417 or 420 IPC.

It further considered the complainant’s alleged suppression of Saha’s earlier service and the circumstances of the complaint indicative of mala fides, bringing the case within categories (1), (3) and (7) of *Bhajan Lal*.

It allowed the revision and quashed the Uttarpara Police Station case, corresponding G.R. Case No. 1619 of 2022, including the charge sheet under Sections 182, 417, 420 and 34 IPC, insofar as Saha was concerned.

Pending applications were disposed of, interim orders vacated, and no order as to costs was made.