SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of using a forged permanent resident certificate to secure selection as a constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police, ruling that there was no evidence to establish that he knew or had reason to believe the document was fake.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on 7 October 2026, set aside the challan and proceedings against Ankush Sharma in a case registered at Akhnoor police station under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The court held that Sharma was only 13 years old when the certificate was allegedly forged by his maternal grandmother, Shanti Devi, in connivance with Patwari Ravi Singh. Both have since died. The court found no evidence that Sharma had participated in preparing the forged document or was aware of its alleged fraudulent nature.
The case originated from a special recruitment drive conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Police recruitment board on August 28 and 29, 2011 for constable posts in Jammu district, targeting candidates from Akhnoor tehsil. Sharma was among 173 candidates selected during the process and submitted a permanent resident certificate that was subsequently found to be fake during verification.
Following a complaint by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, FIR No. 08/2016 was registered on January 30, 2016. The investigation alleged that Sharma’s maternal grandmother had obtained the certificate through the assistance of Patwari Ravi Singh when Sharma was 13.
According to the prosecution, Sharma’s mother, Kamla Devi, had married Ram Parshad Sharma, a resident of Ganga Nagar in Rajasthan. Investigators found that Shanti Devi, who had no son, had taken her grandson into her care and later adopted him. She had also bequeathed her property to Kamla Devi.
The case was initially committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, before being returned to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akhnoor, after the Sessions Court concluded that the material disclosed only an alleged offence under Section 471 RPC against Sharma.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings, arguing that the investigation had not established his involvement in forging the certificate or knowledge that it was fraudulent.
Examining the allegations, Justice Dhar said the material on record supported the conclusion that Sharma had submitted the certificate as genuine during recruitment. However, the prosecution also had to establish that he knew, or had sufficient reason to believe, that the document was forged.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in A. S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala (2004), which explained the distinction between knowledge, reasonable belief, suspicion and doubt in determining criminal liability.
Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that Sharma should have suspected the certificate’s authenticity because his father lived in Rajasthan, the High Court noted that witness statements indicated he had been brought up by his maternal grandmother in Akhnoor and had been adopted by her.
Shanti Devi was herself a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir, the court observed, adding that the circumstances did not provide a basis to conclude that Sharma had reason to doubt the certificate’s genuineness.
Justice Dhar held that an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 471 RPC — knowledge or reasonable belief that the document was forged — had not been established. The charge against Sharma was therefore groundless, and he was entitled to be discharged.
The court accordingly quashed the challenged order framing charges, the challan and all proceedings arising from the case. The petition was disposed of.
The judgment was reserved on September 29, 2026 and pronounced at Jammu on October 7, 2026.
