Court Upholds Legitimacy of FIR Filed by Advocate, Emphasizes Alternative Remedy of Pre-Arrest Bail for Petitioner
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the legitimacy of an FIR filed against Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy, concerning allegations of fraudulent procurement and use of a fake Scheduled Caste certificate. The petitioner had contended that the FIR, lodged by an advocate and not the certificate issuing authority, was procedurally invalid under Rule 7 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995.
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Kishore Datta, argued that the complaint, dated August 30, 2026, violated the procedural requirements set out by the 1995 Rules, which stipulate that only the certificate issuing authority may file such complaints. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that the allegedly forged certificate had been surrendered and was not used.
Countering these arguments, Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Additional Advocate General, representing the state, maintained that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offense and, as such, did not violate any statutory provisions. The court noted that while Rule 7 specifies that the certificate issuing authority should file complaints in cases of false information or forgery, there is no explicit prohibition against others lodging such complaints.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, emphasizing that an inference regarding charges of forgery cannot be made during an ongoing investigation, especially against individuals who may not be the document's creators.
Justice Bhattacharyya highlighted that the petitioner has an alternative legal remedy, suggesting that she could pursue pre-arrest bail if she fears arrest. The court declined to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings, thus dismissing the writ petition but leaving the door open for the petitioner to seek appropriate legal recourse.
The dismissal underscores the judiciary's stance on upholding the procedural legitimacy of FIRs, even when lodged by parties other than those specified in procedural rules, provided they disclose cognizable offenses.
Bottom Line :
Fake Scheduled Caste certificate - Rule 7 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995 does not create an express bar against lodging of complaint by a person other than certificate issuing authority - Where complaint discloses cognizable offence and investigation is in progress, writ court would not interfere at threshold - Petitioner may avail alternative remedy of pre-arrest bail.
Statutory provision(s): West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 Section 10, West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995 Rule 7, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989266
