Court affirms jurisdiction of Economic Offences Wing; finds prima facie evidence of cheating, forgery, and corruption in issuance and renewal of RBA certificate used for public employment
In a significant ruling dated August 29, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against Qulsum Akhter, an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, for allegedly obtaining a Reserved Backward Area (RBA) certificate fraudulently. The FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Srinagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting a nexus between the petitioner and revenue officials in the illegal issuance and renewal of the RBA certificate.
The complaint, lodged by Altaf Ahmad Ganai, alleged that the petitioner secured employment under the RBA category by misrepresenting her residence status. Investigation revealed that although married into a backward area (Handwara) in 2011, she obtained the RBA certificate within two years-contravening the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, which require a minimum 15-year residence in the backward area before eligibility. The certificate was allegedly issued through misuse of official position by several revenue officials including the Patwari, Girdawar, Naib Tehsildar, and Tehsildar of Handwara.
The Court examined the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner regarding the authority of the Economic Offences Wing to register and investigate the FIR. Referring to Notification SO 232 dated May 9, 2022, the Court clarified that offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 RPC relating to documents fall under Chapter XVIII of the IPC and are within the EOW's jurisdiction. It emphasized that jurisdiction depends on the offences disclosed at the time of FIR registration rather than those ultimately established post-investigation.
On merits, the Court observed that the petitioner's claim of bona fide application was contradicted by the investigation findings of false claims and incorrect reports used to obtain the certificate. The Court noted that the forged renewal of the RBA certificate and tampering of official records further substantiated the offences of forgery and criminal conspiracy. It distinguished the present case from precedents where mere erroneous interpretation of reservation rules did not constitute criminal offence, highlighting the involvement of corrupt practices and misuse of official power here.
Consequently, the Court held that prima facie cognizable offences were made out against the petitioner and the implicated officials. It declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR, thereby allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance against fraudulent obtainment of benefits under reservation policies and reinforces the investigative powers of specialized wings to probe economic and document-related offences.
Bottom Line:
Jurisdiction of investigating agency to register FIR depends on offences disclosed in the FIR at the time of its registration, irrespective of the offences that may ultimately be established after investigation.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 (SRO 294), Notification SO 232 dated 9th May 2022
Qulsum Akhter v. UT of J&K, (Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971035
