Delhi High Court on Quashing of FIR Alleging Forged SC/ST Certificate Used for Employment.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 359/2014 registered against the petitioner for allegedly using a forged Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate to secure employment. The Court held that prima facie material existed indicating that the caste certificate in question was fabricated, and that departmental exoneration could not automatically lead to quashing of criminal proceedings, especially in the absence of the full departmental inquiry record. The Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted and that the trial must proceed in accordance with law.

Background:

1. The complainant, Jai Bhagwan, employed as A.G.-II in BSES, lodged a criminal complaint against Rajinder Kumar, A.G.-III, alleging that he had produced a forged SC/ST certificate (No. 3961/89 dated 13.12.1989) to obtain employment and later used it to file a false SC/ST Act case against him.
2. Upon inquiry under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Ranchi District Welfare Office replied that the said certificate was not registered and appeared fabricated.
3. Based on the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., FIR No. 359/2014 was registered under Sections 468, 471, and 474 IPC.
4. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the Magistrate framed charges under Sections 467 and 471 IPC, observing that the certificate created a “valuable security” as it conferred a legal right in favour of the accused.
5. The petitioner’s revision petition challenging the framing of charges was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 05.04.2021.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

1. The petitioner argued that the courts below failed to apply judicial mind and relied only on an incomplete RTI reply.
2. He claimed that the missing register pages and damaged official records made it impossible to verify the certificate’s authenticity.
3. The petitioner asserted that his father belonged to the SC/ST community, hence he was legitimately entitled to the certificate.
4. He further contended that he was exonerated in a departmental inquiry on the same allegations, and hence continuation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of process.
5. Reliance was placed on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636, and NCT of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685, to argue that criminal proceedings should be quashed after departmental exoneration.

Respondent’s Stand:

1. The State submitted that verification from the District Welfare Office, Ranchi confirmed that the caste certificate was forged.
2. It was pointed out that the trial was nearing conclusion, and hence quashing would not be justified.
3. The complainant contended that the departmental exoneration was not on merits, and that the proceedings must continue based on the evidence collected during investigation.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, the test is only whether prima facie material exists to proceed; detailed examination of evidence is impermissible.
2. The District Welfare Office report explicitly stated that:
3. No caste certificate was issued on 13.12.1989.
4. Only one certificate (No. 9692) was issued in December 1989 to another person.
5. Certificate No. 3961/89 fell within the range of missing pages from the official register, which was reported missing in Ranchi Express (1989).
6. The copy of the certificate lacked a visible official seal.
7. Based on this, the Court found sufficient material to indicate that the certificate appeared prima facie forged.
8. The Court held that absence of the full departmental inquiry report meant it could not be established whether the exoneration was on the same allegations or based on similar evidence.
9. Therefore, the principle in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari was inapplicable, as the factual foundation for invoking it was missing.

Held:

1. The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 359/2014 was dismissed.
2. The Court directed that the trial court is free to proceed in accordance with law.
3. It clarified that nothing in the judgment should be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 482, Cr.P.C. – Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.
2. Sections 467 & 471, IPC – Forgery of valuable security and using forged documents as genuine.
3. Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. – Power of Magistrate to order investigation.
4. Rule 14, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1995 – Departmental disciplinary proceedings.

Citation: 2025:DHC: (Judgment dated 29 October 2025)

Case: Rajinder Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025

Crl.M.C. No.: 1979/2021 & Crl.M.A. 13374/2021