Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while dismissing a plea by Qulsum Akhter seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Srinagar, concerning allegations of fraudulently obtaining an RBA certificate and using it to secure public employment. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner argued that the EOW lacked jurisdiction under Government Notification SO 232 dated May 9, 2022, since the offences mentioned in the FIR allegedly did not fall within the subjects assigned to the agency. She also contended that any illegality in issuance of the RBA certificate could be addressed through the statutory appellate or revisional mechanism and did not necessarily give rise to criminal prosecution.

Justice Dhar, however, noted that Sections 467, 468 and 471 RPC fall within the category of offences relating to documents and property marks specifically assigned to the EOW under the notification. Consequently, its jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIR was not barred, he emphasised.

The Court stressed that jurisdiction is tested at the stage of registration of the FIR, rather than by the offences eventually established after investigation.

The Bench specifically distinguished between the question of jurisdiction at the inception of investigation and the offences ultimately established after investigation. It observed,

“The jurisdiction of an investigating agency is not dependent upon the nature of the offences that may ultimately be established after investigation of the case but it is dependent upon the nature of offences which are disclosed from the first information report.”

On the merits, the Court noted that investigation revealed that the petitioner, who had been residing in Srinagar before her marriage to a Handwara resident in 2011, obtained an RBA certificate in 2013 by claiming residence in the backward area. Under SRO 294 of 2005, a person claiming the benefit was required to establish at least 15 years' residence in the backward area. The investigation allegedly found that the petitioner had resided there for only two years.

The Court further recorded material suggesting that the certificate was issued on the basis of false information and incorrect reports by revenue officials and was subsequently used by the petitioner to secure appointment as Assistant Professor in Biochemistry under the RBA category.

The Bench also distinguished the original certificate from its renewal. While forgery of the original 2013 certificate had not been established because it was issued by the competent authority, the investigation allegedly found the renewed certificate to be forged, with signatures not belonging to the concerned Tehsildar and tampering of the dispatch register.

Rejecting the contention that the matter was merely a violation of reservation rules, the Court observed that the material prima facie indicated that the petitioner had, “in league with other officials of the Revenue Department,” fraudulently managed the issuance and renewal of the certificate and used it for obtaining public employment. It observed,

“It cannot be stated that it is only a case of violation of rules,” the Court observed, adding that it appeared to be “a case of obtainment of the RBA certificate in a fraudulent manner.”

The Court distinguished its earlier decision in Indira Thakur v. State, noting that the present case involved allegations of false information, incorrect reports and a forged renewal certificate, rather than merely an erroneous interpretation of reservation rules.

Holding that the material prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, Justice Dhar declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR. The petition was dismissed and the Case Diary directed to be returned to the investigating agency.

Case Title: Qulsum Akhter v. UT of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click Here To Read Download/Download Judgment