JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mridul Kumar Kalita, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. W. Mantaw, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This Criminal petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner, namely, Ms. Tiprami Manlong, praying for quashing the F.I.R., dated 01.04.2023 filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 before the Officer-in-Charge of Naharlagun Police Station. On the basis of which, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023 under Sections 465/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. It is pertinent to mention, herein, that though there were 9 (nine) respondents in this case and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, the first informants of the F.I.R., namely, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 did not appear in this criminal petition in spite of due service of notice on them. 4. The petitioner has mainly challenged the initiation of the criminal proceeding against her, on the basis of the impugned F.I.R., without following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Kumari Mahuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.“ reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 . 5. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows: (i) That on 01.04.2023, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 of this criminal petition had lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the present petitioner, namely, Ms. Tiprami Manlong, who is an original resident of Assam under Narayanpur Police Station in the District of Lakhimpur Assam, has used the privilege of Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) Certificate and got inducted as Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) (2021- 2022) in Arunachal Pradesh under APST reserved category, thereby, depriving the Scheduled Tribes (ST) of Arunachal Pradesh. It was prayed in the F.I.R. to register a forgery case against her under appropriate sections of law. Accordingly, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023, under Sections 465/468/471/420 of the IPC was registered and the Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station himself initiated the investigation of the case. 6. It was prayed in the F.I.R. to register a forgery case against her under appropriate sections of law. Accordingly, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023, under Sections 465/468/471/420 of the IPC was registered and the Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station himself initiated the investigation of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after initiation of the investigation, the petitioner had received a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the Investigation Officer (I.O) and in pursuant to the same, she had submitted the original ST certificates as well as Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) certificate issued to her by the concerned authorities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case of receipt of an allegation regarding the genuineness of an ST certificate, no criminal prosecution may be initiated without there being confirmation about the said allegation by the Committee prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra). He submits that a clear bar has been prescribed, in the said judgment, for any other proceeding, before any other authority, before receipt of the report of the committee regarding the falsity of the certificate obtained or the Social Status claimed by the petitioner. In that regard, apart from relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a decision of the coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of “Kishore Kumar Baishya and Anr. Vs. the State of Assam and Ors.” reported in 2019 (4) GLT 269. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as, in the instant case, the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on filing of the F.I.R. by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 by registration of the Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023 and conduct of investigation, thereafter, was not based on any report of the Scrutiny Committee as mandated by the Apex Court, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and the subsequent investigation is also liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. 4 to 9 by registration of the Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023 and conduct of investigation, thereafter, was not based on any report of the Scrutiny Committee as mandated by the Apex Court, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and the subsequent investigation is also liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that in the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned F.I.R. was registered and the investigation was initiated without there being any report of the Scrutiny Committee, against the genuineness of the APST certificate obtained by the petitioner, as mandated by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra). He fairly submits that only after filing of the instant criminal petition, a meeting of the Scrutiny Committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary (Political), Government of Arunachal Pradesh was held on 4th of September, 2023 and the fate of the said enquiry conducted by the Scrutiny Committee is not yet known. In support of his submission, he has produced a copy of the Minutes of Meeting of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 4th September, 2023. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 11. As regards the procedure for issuance of Social Status Certificate, their scrutiny and their approval and as to what should be done when the Caste Certificate obtained or Social Status claimed is found to be false has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra). The relevant observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case are quoted hereinbelow: “13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 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 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 high-er 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. 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 overall 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. 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. 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-à-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. 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. 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. 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.” 12. On perusal of the above guidelines, it appears that when any allegation regarding the genuineness of a Caste Certificate is made by anyone, no criminal prosecution may be initiated automatically. The said allegation has to be first verified by an enquiry to be conducted by the committee prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra). It is only when the certificate obtained or the social status claimed is found to be false, upon such an enquiry, the criminal prosecution may be initiated against the candidate. Registration of a criminal case and proceeding with the investigation, without following the mandate of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra) would be against the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. 13. In the instant case, on perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 4th September, 2023, it is apparent that though the impugned F.I.R. was registered on 01.04.2023 and investigation was initiated, however, till 4th of September, 2023, no adverse report on the Scrutiny Committee, with regard to the allegation made in the F.I.R., was available for initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 14. As in the instant case, initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner has been in violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court of India in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil” (supra), as discussed hereinbefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.04.2023 as well as the investigation which has ensued thereafter, in Itanagar P.S. Case No. 82/2023 is hereby, quashed and set aside. 15. With above observation, this criminal petition, is accordingly allowed and disposed of.