"Serious Ramifications": J&K&L High Court Transfers Investigation In Baramulla Fake Decree Case To Crime Branch, Constitutes SIT

This direction came while disposing a petition filed by Tabinda Nazir, an advocate, challenging an FIR registered at Police Station Baramulla under Sections 61(2), 316(5), 318(4), 337, 339 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with her connected bail application. The FIR arose from a complaint by the Sub-Judge/JMIC Baramulla after purported certified copies of a decree in a civil suit were found despite the original judicial file being untraceable.

Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that the allegations went beyond an ordinary fraud, noting that “creation of a fictitious civil proceeding and fabrication of judicial records, if ultimately established in accordance with law, would have serious ramifications for the integrity of the justice-delivery system and the sanctity attached to judicial records.”

Background

The case arose when an Anti-Corruption Bureau official sought certified copies of the final order, decree and compromise in a civil suit purportedly decided by the Sub-Judge, Baramulla on January 22, 2021.

A search of the record room, however, failed to locate the original judicial file. The Record Room did contain applications purportedly seeking certified copies and corresponding entries in the issuance register, while copies in possession of the ACB purportedly bore the signatures of the judicial officer authorised to issue them.

The Principal District Judge, Baramulla consequently directed a fact-finding inquiry by the Additional District Judge. The inquiry prima facie indicated that members of the court staff had allegedly acted in connivance with beneficiaries and other interested persons to facilitate preparation and issuance of fabricated certified copies and had allegedly procured the signatures of the officer authorised to issue certified copies.

The investigation further indicated that the purported decree had allegedly been used to secure mutations relating to land. The purported forged decree itself had not been recovered, although an electronic device allegedly used in preparing the fabricated document had been seized.

The investigation also brought under scrutiny the role of revenue officials and a retired judicial officer. The latter was questioned and denied that the disputed decree bore his signatures, while also stating that the document did not conform to the prescribed legal procedure.

Court's Observation:

Adjudicating the matter Justice Parihar noted that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicated a conspiracy to fabricate judicial records, procure certified copies thereof and subsequently use them as genuine documents. The Court specifically cautioned that allegations emerging from disclosure statements and other investigative material would have to be tested against legally admissible evidence.

The Court observed,

“Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, the allegations cannot be treated as involving merely the irregular procurement of documents. The material collected thus far prima facie points towards an alleged conspiracy to fabricate judicial records for the purpose of cheating and thereafter to use such fabricated records as genuine.”

The Court also took note of the alleged use of the purported decree to alter revenue records concerning land. It recorded that the investigation involved allegations that approximately 15 kanals of land were sought to be appropriated through fabrication and use of a fictitious decree and consequential alteration of revenue records. The Court made it clear that these remained matters under investigation and were not findings of criminal liability.

Justice Parihar found that important investigative leads had not yet been pursued to their logical conclusion. In particular, the role attributed to the retired judicial officer required further examination, while certain mutation entries concerning the land allegedly benefiting the accused had also not been comprehensively investigated.

The Court stressed the institutional dimension of the allegations, observing that the matter involved not merely alleged manipulation of documents but the alleged creation of a fictitious judicial proceeding itself.

“….While the investigating agency has taken several steps during the course of investigation, the material presently before the Court indicates that the role attributed to the concerned former judicial officer, as also the role of higher revenue officials, requires a more comprehensive investigation. The investigation, therefore, requires further direction, supervision and augmentation so as to ensure that it proceeds fairly, comprehensively and in accordance with law and culminates in a legally sustainable conclusion”, the bench remarked.

It accordingly held that the matter warranted investigation by a Special Investigation Team so that the role of every person connected with the alleged conspiracy, fabrication and subsequent use of the purported judicial records could be examined comprehensively.

The Court consequently concluded that the investigation could not appropriately remain with the local police. It directed that the FIR be transferred to the Crime Branch of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and that the Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, constitute an SIT comprising senior officers of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The SIT was directed to undertake further investigation and carry it to its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with law. The Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, was directed to supervise the investigation to ensure that it remained fair, objective and expeditious and was uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. The SIT was also directed to submit periodic status reports to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court.

Interim Bail To Advocate Tabinda Nazir

In the connected Bail Application the Court separately considered the petitioner's request for bail. The Court noted that she was at a relatively early stage of her legal career, had been provisionally enrolled in 2022 and finally enrolled in 2024. It also noted that the civil suit she had instituted on behalf of co-accused Rabia Rashid in 2024 had been found during investigation to be a genuine proceeding.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had already undergone approximately 15 days of custodial remand and that the Investigating Officer had stated that she had cooperated with the investigation. The Court also noted the absence, at that stage, of any previous criminal antecedents.

Without expressing any final opinion on the allegations, the Court observed,

“the observations made herein are, therefore, confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or prejudice the investigation or proceedings at any subsequent stage.”

The Court accordingly granted her interim bail pending completion of investigation, subject to a personal bond and surety bond of ₹1 lakh each.

Case Title: Tabinda Nazir v. Union Territory through Police Station Baramulla

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 423

Click here to read/download Judgment