Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Alleged Fake SC Certificate, Says No Express Bar On Police Complaint

The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with an FIR alleging fraudulent procurement and use of a Scheduled Caste certificate, holding that there was no express statutory bar on lodging a police complaint in such a case.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya was hearing a writ petition filed by Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy challenging Bongaon Police Station FIR No. 703/2026, registered on August 30, 2026.

Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the complaint was lodged by an advocate and was contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995.

Relying on Section 10 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, it was submitted that where a person furnishes false information, misrepresents facts, suppresses material information or produces a document procured through forgery to obtain a caste certificate, the certificate issuing authority is required to lodge a complaint under Rule 7.

The petitioner therefore contended that the criminal prosecution initiated on the basis of the August 30 complaint was not maintainable. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581.

It was further argued that the allegedly forged certificate had not been used by the petitioner and that she had surrendered it before the concerned authority.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder submitted that there was no statutory bar on taking action on a complaint which disclosed a cognizable offence. He argued that the provisions of the 1994 Act and 1995 Rules did not create any embargo on initiating criminal proceedings.

The High Court noted that the complaint alleged fraudulent procurement and usage of a Scheduled Caste certificate, the details of which were mentioned in the complaint. The Court also noted that the issue had earlier been brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon and the Assistant Commissioner for Reservation and Ex-Officio Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, following which the SDO had cancelled the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

The Court observed: “Notwithstanding Rule 7 of the said Rules of 1995 that certificate issuing authority shall file complaint against any person in the event of furnishing false information, misrepresentation of fact, suppression of material information and/ or production of document resorting to act of forgery, there is no express bar in lodging complaint in the case of procurement of fake Caste Certificate.”

The Court further held that, since the investigation was underway, it was not the appropriate stage to determine whether the charge of forgery could be sustained against a person who was not the maker of the allegedly forged document.

Referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Sheila Sebastian, the Court said that the issue could not be conclusively determined at the present stage of investigation.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate forum for pre-arrest bail if she apprehended arrest in connection with the FIR.

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the writ petition and dismissed it, while clarifying that the order would not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum for pursuing the available remedy.

Case: TUMPA BISWAS ALIAS TUMPA ROY VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Case No: W.P.A. 24871 OF 2026