A complaint alleging fraudulent procurement and use of a Scheduled Caste certificate is not barred merely because it was filed by an advocate and not by the certificate-issuing authority, the Calcutta High Court has held, declining to interfere with the FIR at the stage of investigation.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition by Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy questioning Bongaon Police Station FIR No. 703/2026 dated August 30, 2026, registered on a complaint alleging fraudulent procurement and use of a Scheduled Caste certificate, holding that there is no express bar on lodging such a complaint [Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy v. State of West Bengal and Others].
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya passed the order on September 28, 2026. The allegations in the FIR are yet to be investigated and tested.
Submissions
Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, for the petitioner, argued that the complaint was lodged by an advocate, contrary to Rule 7 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995. He relied on Section 10 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, under which furnishing false information, misrepresentation, suppression of material information or producing a forged document to obtain a certificate is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to Rs 5,000, or both, provided the certificate-issuing authority files the complaint under Rule 7. On that basis he argued that the prosecution based on the August 30 complaint is bad and not maintainable, relying on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581. He also argued that the alleged forged certificate was not used by the petitioner and was surrendered to the authority.
Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder, for the State, argued that there is no statutory bar on taking steps on the complaint, which discloses a cognizable offence, irrespective of the 1994 Act and the 1995 Rules.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that the complaint alleges fraudulent procurement and use of a Scheduled Caste certificate, whose number it mentions, and that after the issue was 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 on December 29, 2025 and April 28, 2026 respectively, the SDO cancelled the certificate issued in the petitioner’s favour.
Though Rule 7 provides that the certificate-issuing authority shall file a complaint where false information, misrepresentation, suppression or forgery is involved, the Court held that there is no express bar on lodging a complaint in a case of procurement of a fake caste certificate. It added that, since investigation is going on, this is not the appropriate stage to infer whether a charge of forgery is imposed on a person who is not the maker of the document, as held in paragraph 25 of Sheila Sebastian.
Result
The Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate forum for pre-arrest bail if she apprehends arrest, declined to interfere, and dismissed the petition. It clarified that the order does not preclude her from approaching the appropriate forum for a remedy. It also took on record a communication dated September 10, 2026 from the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon Police Station, North 24 Parganas, and directed that a copy be given to the petitioner’s advocate.
Case Title: Tumpa Biswas alias Tumpa Roy v. State of West Bengal and Others
Case Number: W.P.A. 24871 of 2026
Bench: Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Kishore Datta with Advocates Vivekananda Bose, Soham De Dhara and Ratikanta Pal for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder with Advocates Madhu Jana and Srijit Halder for the State