SRINAGAR : The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash an FIR against an Assistant Professor accused of fraudulently obtaining a Reserved Backward Area (RBA) certificate to secure a government job, holding that the material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed cognizable offences against her.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing a petition filed by Qulsum Akhter, observed that the case was not merely one of violation of reservation rules but appeared to involve fraudulent procurement of an RBA certificate in collusion with revenue officials. The court held that it could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the FIR and proceedings arising from it.
“Thus, it cannot be stated that it is only a case of violation of rules but it appears to be a case of obtainment of the RBA certificate in a fraudulent manner,” Justice Dhar said in the judgment pronounced on August 29.
The court was hearing CRM(M) No.403/2025, in which Akhter had challenged FIR No.9/2025 registered at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the RPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Akhter was represented by Senior Advocate Pranav Kohli, assisted by Advocate Mudasir Zubair. The Union Territory of J&K and the complainant were arrayed as respondents. There was no appearance for respondents 1 and 2, while Advocate Sara appeared for respondent No.3, Altaf Ahmad Ganai, in place of Advocate F.A. Bhat.
The case arose from a complaint alleging that Akhter, who had been selected as Assistant Professor in Biochemistry under the RBA category through Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Notification No.35-PSC (DR-S) of March 15, 2019, had fraudulently managed an RBA certificate.
The Economic Offences Wing initially conducted a preliminary verification. During the probe, the agency found that Akhter, who had been residing in Srinagar before her marriage, married Riyaz Ahmad Mir, a resident of Baki Akhar, Handwara, on July 7, 2011. She subsequently obtained an RBA certificate from the Tehsil Office, Handwara, on June 27, 2013—within two years of her marriage.
The investigation examined the eligibility requirements under SRO 294 of November 21, 2005, by which the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, were notified. The court noted that a person seeking the benefit of residence in a backward area was required to establish residence there for at least 15 years before applying and to be actually residing there.
“In the instant case, the petitioner had resided in the backward area only for two years when she had applied for the RBA certificate,” the court noted.
According to the investigation, the certificate was issued despite the alleged ineligibility and was subsequently produced before the J&K Public Service Commission, on the strength of which Akhter secured appointment as Assistant Professor, Biochemistry, under Government Order No.255-HE of April 26, 2019.
The investigating agency also alleged that revenue officials, including Patwari Mohammad Shafi Wani, Girdawar Farooq Ahmad Khan, Naib Tehsildar Bashir Ahmad War and Tehsildar Ghulam Ahmad Khan, had abused their official positions in preparing and issuing the certificate. The agency stated that offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 167 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been established against these officials.
The investigation further uncovered irregularities concerning renewal of the RBA certificate. The court recorded that the original certificate file and the renewal file were missing from the Tehsil Office, while signatures appearing on the renewed certificate were found not to be those of the concerned Tehsildar. Investigators also found alleged insertions in the dispatch register to show that the renewed certificate had been dispatched from the Tehsildar’s office.
On this aspect, the court said the renewed RBA certificate was “forged” and that the dispatch register had been tampered with to create the appearance that the certificate had been officially issued.
The petitioner, however, argued that the FIR had been lodged about 12 years after issuance of the original RBA certificate and that the complainant had failed to explain the delay. She also maintained that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of cheating, forgery or misrepresentation.
Her counsel argued that she had bona fide applied for the certificate and that the competent authority, after following due process and verification, had issued it. Any violation of the applicable reservation rules, it was submitted, could at best provide grounds for cancellation of the certificate through the statutory appellate or revisional mechanism and could not automatically result in criminal prosecution.
The petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing to register and investigate the case, relying on Government Notification SO 232 dated May 9, 2022. Her counsel contended that the offences mentioned in the FIR did not fall within the subjects assigned to the EOW under the notification.
The High Court rejected the jurisdictional objection. It noted that the notification authorised the EOW to investigate offences relating to documents and property marks. Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the RPC, the court observed, fell within that category.
“The jurisdiction of an investigating agency is not dependent upon the nature of the offences that may ultimately be established after investigation of the case but it is dependent upon the nature of offences which are disclosed from the first information report,” the court held.
The court said that since offences disclosed in the FIR at the time of registration fell within the investigating agency’s jurisdiction, the EOW could proceed with the investigation even if additional offences were subsequently found.
On the merits, the court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on its earlier judgment in Indira Thakur v. State and another, decided on October 17, 2022. In that case, the certificate had been issued on the basis of a particular interpretation of the reservation rules, which the court found to be one of the possible interpretations of the relevant provision. There had also been no allegation or material indicating that the competent authority had adopted corrupt means or obtained pecuniary advantage.
The present case, Justice Dhar said, was materially different.
“Not only the RBA certificate in question has been issued in gross violation of Clause (3) of Rule 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, but there is also material on record to show that the same has been issued on the basis of false information and incorrect reports and besides this, the renewed RBA certificate is also forged in nature,” the court observed.
The court further held that the material collected during the investigation prima facie attracted the ingredients of offences under Sections 420 and 167 RPC in relation to the original certificate, while the alleged forgery of the renewed certificate also supported the forgery-related offences.
It noted that although forgery of the original 2013 RBA certificate had not been established because it had been issued by the competent authority, albeit in violation of the rules, the circumstances surrounding its issuance allegedly involved false claims and incorrect reports by revenue officials.
The court concluded that the material in the case diary supported the finding that cognizable offences had prima facie been made out against the petitioner.
“For the foregoing reasons, it would not be open to this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to quash the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom,” the court said.
“The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly,” it ordered.
The judgment was reserved on August 13 and pronounced on August 29, 2026. The court also directed that the case diary be returned to the investigating agency
