JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 741/2018 and Crl. P. No. 754/2018. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, for the respondent No. 1, in both these criminal petitions. 2. By preferring the petition i.e. Crl. Pet. No. 741/2018, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned FIR, dated 25.6.2018, whereupon Duliajan P.S. Case No. 220/2018 u/s. 420/468 IPC (corresponding to G.R. No. 2201/2018) has been registered. 3. According to Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel, the petitioner, herein, who is a graduate in B.E.(Mechanical), belongs to "Bania" sub-caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Castes under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes), Order 1950, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification Order), 1976. The petitioner, after successfully pursuing his MBA, joined Oil India Ltd. (for short, 'OIL') in the year 1993 and is presently serving as Deputy General Manager (Planning). While serving thus, the petitioner received a Notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing him to appear before the I.O. of Duliajan P.S. on 3.7.2018 in connection with Duliajan P.S. Case No. 220/2018 u/s. 420/468 IPC. He obtained the certified copy of the FIR, dated 25.06.2018, on 04.07.2018, which goes to indicate that the respondent No. 2 had leveled an allegation to the effect that the petitioner and another lady, are serving in their respective posts, by obtaining fraudulent SC certificates through false documents, thereby depriving the genuine candidates of SC community from such employment. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the OC of Duliajan P.S. started the investigation of the case. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel, submits that though the petitioner's forefathers belonged to "Bania" community which is recognized as SC community in Assam, however, inadvertently, the name of the petitioner's father was recorded as Bagaram Baishya instead of Bagaram Bania. An affidavit was executed by his father before the Magistrate at Guwahati declaring that he will be known as Sri Bagaram Bania for all purposes during his lifetime and that his legal heirs i.e. sons and daughters, will be entitled to use the title "Bania". An affidavit was executed by his father before the Magistrate at Guwahati declaring that he will be known as Sri Bagaram Bania for all purposes during his lifetime and that his legal heirs i.e. sons and daughters, will be entitled to use the title "Bania". The petitioner was accordingly issued the SC certificate by the competent authority i.e. Asom Anusuchit Jati Parishad, Assam, Guwahati, duly countersigned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rangia, way back in 1985. He, thereafter, got job in OIL, Duliajan, and has so far completed 25 years of service without any blemish. 5. By preferring the petition i.e. Crl. Pet. No. 754/2018, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned FIR, dated 7.7.2018, whereupon Duliajan P.S. Case No. 234/2018 u/s. 420/468 IPC (corresponding to GR. No. 2377/2018) has been registered. 6. The petitioner, in this case too, belongs to "Mali" caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Castes under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes), Order 1950, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification Order), 1976. The petitioner, after successfully completing her academic career, joined Oil India Ltd. (for short, 'OIL'), a Government of India undertaking in the year 1991 as Executive Trainee and is presently serving as General Manager (Administration). While serving thus, the petitioner received a Notice under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing him to appear before the IO of Nowholia Police Out-Post on 20.07.2018, in connection with Duliajan P.S. Case No. 234/2018, u/s. 420/468 IPC. The petitioner received another Notice dated 18.7.2018 u/s. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to produce the original Caste Certificate on 20.7.2018 before the same police authority. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the I.O. of Nowholia Police Out-Post and her statement was duly recorded by the police. The original SC certificate produced by the petitioner, was later-on handed back to her after ascertaining the facts related to the investigation. She obtained the certified copy of the FIR, dated 7.7.2018, on 31.7.2018, which goes to indicate that the respondent No. 2 had leveled an allegation to the effect that the petitioner is serving in the Administration Department of OIL, by obtaining fraudulent SC certificate, thereby prayed for taking appropriate legal action. She obtained the certified copy of the FIR, dated 7.7.2018, on 31.7.2018, which goes to indicate that the respondent No. 2 had leveled an allegation to the effect that the petitioner is serving in the Administration Department of OIL, by obtaining fraudulent SC certificate, thereby prayed for taking appropriate legal action. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the OC of Duliajan P.S. started the investigation of the case in connection with Duliajan P.S. Case No. 234/2018 u/s. 420/468 IPC. 7. In Crl. Pet. No. 754/2018, Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel, submits that the petitioner's forefathers belonged to "Mali" community which is recognized as SC community in Assam, and the SC certificate was issued by the competent authority i.e. Assam Scheduled Castes Development Council, Guwahati, in favour of the petitioner in the year 1974 which was duly countersigned by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. He, thereafter, got job in OIL, Duliajan, after scrutinization of his certificate and has so far completed 27 years of service without any blemish. 8. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in both these cases, further submits that the investigating authority while drawing-up the investigation, without proper application of mind and misunderstanding the facts and circumstances of the cases, registered the criminal cases under Section 420/468 IPC against the petitioners even when there is a separate Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the State Government for efficacious redressal of such complaints as regards the veracity of the SC certificates. Learned senior counsel also submits that the contents of the FIRs do not constitute any offence or make-out a case against the petitioners, herein, and as such, the impugned FIRs may be set aside and quashed. 9. Learned senior counsel further submits that the proceedings, in question, are maliciously instituted against these petitioners at Duliajan P.S. with an ulterior motive seeking vengeance due to private and personal grudge. The petitioners, in fact, do not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that considering the matter in its entirety, the impugned FIRs appeared to be highly illegal and arbitrary and as such, he prays that the said FIRs may be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the guidelines rendered by the Apex Court, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. 10. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the guidelines rendered by the Apex Court, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., wherein it has been advised that while determining the genuineness of the Caste Certificate, pursuant to receipt of any such complaint, the concerned Deputy Commissioner must place the matter before the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thus, the informant organization ought to have filed the complaints, if any, regarding the genuineness of the SC certificates before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, who is supposed to place the same before the Caste Scrutiny Committee instead of lodging FIR before the Duliajan Police Station when there is a proper forum constituted and is in existence under the State Government, for such purpose. 11. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the relevant paragraphs of the following decisions rendered by this Court and the Apex Court, respectively: (i). Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. State of Assam & Ors. [reported in 2016 (4) GLT 1094] (ii). Sanjib Mazumdar @ Sonti Mazumdar Vs. State of Assam & Ors. [reported in 2015 (1) GLT 597 : 2015 2 GLR 216] (iii). Kumari Madhuri Patel & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 ]. 12. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No. 1 submits that as per the F.I.Rs., the prima facie offence on the part of the petitioners lies in dishonestly or fraudulently obtaining Scheduled Caste Certificate, by way of submitting false documents in order to obtain job depriving genuine scheduled caste unemployed persons. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 14. In Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the matter of fraudulent obtaining of social status certificates for the special benefits conferred by the Constitution and laid down the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval as extracted here in below:- "1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis. the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis. the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day to day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last-date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post". 15. This Court in Sanjib Mazumdar @ Sonti Mazumdar (Supra) placing reliance on the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) held that no criminal proceeding can be initiated questioning the validity of the caste certificate or alleging that the certificate was obtain from the authority by fraud, unless considered and decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In Rajesh Jaiswal (Supra), this Court held that such disputed caste certificate has to be considered and decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee only. 16. Perusal of the F.I.R., dated 25.6.2018, lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Duliajan P.S. by the General Secretary, Asom Anusuchit Jati Yuba Chatra Santha, Dibrugarh District Committee, whereupon Duliajan P.S. Case No. 220/2018 under Section 420/468 of the IPC, under challenge in the above Crl. Pet. 16. Perusal of the F.I.R., dated 25.6.2018, lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Duliajan P.S. by the General Secretary, Asom Anusuchit Jati Yuba Chatra Santha, Dibrugarh District Committee, whereupon Duliajan P.S. Case No. 220/2018 under Section 420/468 of the IPC, under challenge in the above Crl. Pet. No. 741/2018 and the F.I.R., dated 7.7.2018, lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station by the Central Organizing Secretary, Asom Anusuchit Jati Yuba Chatra Santha, whereupon Duliajan P.S. Case No. 234/2018 under Section 420/468 of the IPC, involved in the above Crl. Pet. No. 754/2018 are registered do not reveal anything as to whether a duly constituted Caste Scrutiny Committee considered and recorded finding on the allegations through a process of discrete inquiry as per the guidelines given in Kumari Madhuri Patil Case (Supra). The disputed caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners are yet to be cancelled/annulled by the competent authorities and as such, so long the said certificates remain in operation, no criminal prosecution can be launched against the petitioners. The validity of such certificate can be questioned only in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, subject, of course, to the satisfaction of the guidelines laid in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra). 17. In the result, the Duliajan P.S. Case No. 220/2018 (G.R. Case No. 220/2018) and Duliajan P.S. Case No. 234/2018 (GR. Case No. 2377/2018), under Section 420/468 of the IPC stand set aside and quashed. 18. The criminal petitions, accordingly, allowed. No cost.