interim relief of bail  against f.i.r regarding forgery of Ph.D. certificate

Criminal Forgery

Posted by: Aditya Pratap Law Offices on 2024-07-19

---

Using forged certificates can have significant legal, professional, and personal consequences, both for the individual involved and potentially for others affected by their actions.  The consequences not only harm the public but also entail legal consequences under IPC and retroactive penalties, including loss of job or title. It also leads to expulsion, revocation of degrees or certifications, and being barred from future enrolment or employment opportunities in academic institutions. 

The applicant  was entangled in a legal battle centered around allegations of using a forged Ph.D. certificate from Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University. The matter came to light through a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), and 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), accusing her of presenting herself as a qualified Clinical Psychologist based on falsified credentials. This was when the applicant  approached the Hon’ble court to quash and set aside a police report (FIR). The applicant  was represented by Advocate Aditya Pratap.

The opposite side includes an informant who, when he received certain documents containing the certificate, had suspicions as there were apparent grammatical and typographical errors in the Ph.D. degree certificate. This was when the informant approached the police. This was then the investigating agency checked with the Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, which said the serial number on the certificate was not genuine.

applicant  arguments

applicant ,through her Ld. Counsel Advocate Aditya Pratap, vehemently denies the accusations. They argue that the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that she forged the document—a critical element necessary to invoke Section 467. Rather, the law requires clear evidence linking the accused directly to the act of forgery.

The applicant  also claims that the prosecution was initiated due to her grievances against the authorities especially, the higher police officers, in connection with the investigation in the FIRs lodged by her. 

The applicant  has sought temporary relief by requesting bail until the petition is resolved.

prosecution arguments 

The prosecution contends that applicant 's alleged use of a forged Ph.D. certificate qualifies as valuable security under this provision, arguing that such deception undermines public trust and potentially harms individuals relying on her purported qualifications. It was also contended that, since the investigation has revealed instances where the applicant  allegedly made unjustifiable claims of possessing multiple qualifications based on false certificates/testimonials, it cannot be definitively stated that there is insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against her. Due to the preliminary stage of the investigation, the court should not justify dismissing the consideration of quashing, even concerning the specific offense under Section 467 of the Penal Code.

decision of the court

The court opined that based on the legal analysis provided earlier and applying it to the specifics of this case, prima facie, the Ph.D. certificate does not meet the criteria to be classified as a "valuable security." The prosecution's argument that the intrinsic evidence within the Ph.D. certificate suggests forgery, particularly in light of apparent typographical and grammatical errors, holds some weight. However, at this initial stage, the charge under Section 465 of the Penal Code may be considered prima facie established at most.

The issue of whether the offense under Section 467 of the Penal Code has been established requires further examination. It suffices to note that determining the applicant 's complicity in the offense under Section 467 warrants careful consideration and scrutiny.

Additionally, the court considered humanitarian factors like applicant  being a single mother caring for a minor and an elderly dependent. These, along with the challenges of COVID-19, influenced the decision to grant bail under strict conditions. These conditions required applicant  to avoid using the disputed Ph.D. certificate and fully cooperate with the investigation. 

In summary,applicant's case highlights the intricate legal challenges of dealing with forgery allegations in India. It underscores the need to balance stringent legal criteria with the individual circumstances of the accused. The case's outcome is expected to set important precedents for how forgery cases are prosecuted and defended in Indian courts.