Unrelated Family Records Cannot Be Retained During Forgery Investigation: J&K HC

Razia And Ors. Vs Union Territory of J&K (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)

Summary: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed a petition by Razia and others challenging the Trial Court’s order dated 25.11.2025, which had released only some of 52 articles and documents seized by the Crime Branch in FIR No. 09/2023. The FIR concerns allegations that Showkat Ahmad Mir, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, obtained appointment as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in 1993 using fake and forged documents and thereafter received salary and other benefits. The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC. The petitioners contended that passbooks, PLI passbooks, cash certificates, bank-locker records, jewellery receipts and other personal material belonged to them or bore no relation to the alleged fraudulent appointment. The prosecution argued that investigation was continuing and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

At the hearing, the Investigating Officer identified educational qualifications, appointment papers and the accused’s service record as relevant to the investigation. He also conceded that no material had emerged suggesting assets disproportionate to the accused’s known sources of income. The Court found that the investigation concerned alleged procurement of public employment through forged documents and the resulting salary, rather than disproportionate assets. It noted the absence of any FIR allegation that the petitioners prepared or used forged documents. Their family relationship with the accused and recovery of their personal records during a search did not establish a reason to retain those records. The Court observed that Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. require judicial discretion over custody and disposal of property to be exercised in light of its relevance and the need for continued retention. Mere pendency of investigation did not justify retaining documents with no discernible connection to the alleged offence.

The Court modified the Trial Court’s order and directed release on superdari in favour of petitioner No. 1 of the seized items other than serial Nos. 43 to 52, including items already ordered released. She must undertake to preserve them in their present form and produce them before the Investigating Agency or Court when required during investigation or trial. Items 43 to 52, relating to educational qualifications, appointment and service record, remain with the Investigating Agency, subject to further orders of the competent Court. The Case Diary was directed to be returned to the Investigating Officer.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT

1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby their application seeking release of certain articles/documents seized by the Crime Branch in connection with FIR No. 09/2023, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC, has been partly allowed. While some of the seized articles/documents have been directed to be released, release of the remaining articles/documents has been declined.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation, conducted a search of the residential premises of accused Showkat Ahmad Mir, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and seized as many as 52 articles/documents. The accusation against the said accused is that he had secured appointment in the Police Department as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1993 on the strength of fake and forged documents and had, consequently, derived monetary benefits from such appointment.

3. The grievance projected by the petitioners is that a substantial number of the seized articles/documents, including passbooks, PLI passbooks, cash certificates, bank-locker receipts and receipts pertaining to purchase of jewellery, either belong to the petitioners or have no nexus whatsoever with the allegations forming the subject matter of the FIR. It is, accordingly, contended that continued retention of such articles/documents serves no legitimate purpose of investigation and causes unnecessary prejudice to the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the prosecution, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet is yet to be laid before the competent Court. It was, thus, contended that the articles/documents retained by the Investigating Agency may be required for the purposes of investigation and trial.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Case Diary.

6. During the course of hearing, Mr. Abdul Razak, Sub-Inspector, SCW Crime Branch, Srinagar, appearing in person, fairly submitted that the gravamen of the accusation against the accused is that he had secured public employment on the strength of fake and forged documents. He further identified the documents connected with the educational qualifications, appointment and service record of the accused as being material for investigation into the alleged offences.

7. For convenience of the disposal of the present petition, following documents are listed below: –

8. Significantly, the Investigating Officer also fairly conceded that, as on date, the investigation has not yielded any material suggesting that the accused had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The investigation, therefore, essentially pertains to the allegation that the accused secured employment on the basis of fake and forged documents and thereafter received salary and other emoluments consequent upon such appointment.

9. Once the scope of investigation is viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, there appears to be no justifiable reason for continued retention of articles/documents having no nexus with the alleged fraudulent appointment. The account statements, PLI passbooks, cash certificates, property returns, bank-locker receipts, receipts pertaining to purchase of jewellery and other personal documents of the petitioners cannot, merely because they were recovered during the course of search, be retained indefinitely when their relevance to the offence under investigation is neither demonstrated nor otherwise discernible from the record.

10. It is also pertinent to notice that the petitioners are immediate family members of the accused and there is no allegation in the FIR that they were privy to, or in any manner participated in, the preparation or use of the allegedly forged documents. Their personal financial and other records, therefore, cannot be retained merely on account of their relationship with the accused, particularly when the prosecution itself is unable to demonstrate any nexus between such documents and the offences under investigation.

11. Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. vest the competent Court with jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders regarding custody and disposal of property during the pendency of investigation or trial. Such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view, inter alia, the nature of the property, its relevance to the investigation or trial, and the necessity of its continued retention.

12. In the present case, the learned Trial Court appears to have declined release of a substantial part of the seized material without adequately examining whether each such article/document had any bearing upon the allegations forming the subject matter of the FIR. Mere pendency of investigation, by itself, cannot constitute sufficient justification for continued retention of documents which have no discernible nexus with the offence under investigation.

13. The prosecution case is not one relating to acquisition or possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused. Consequently, the continued retention of cash certificates, PLI passbooks, bank-locker receipts, jewellery-purchase receipts and other similar documents cannot be said to advance the investigation into the allegation that the accused had secured public employment on the strength of fake or forged documents.

14. At the same time, the documents figuring at Serial Nos. 43 to 52 of the seizure list pertain to the educational qualifications, appointment and service record of the accused and have a direct bearing upon the allegations under investigation. Their continued retention by the Investigating Agency, at this stage, is therefore justified.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition merits acceptance and is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that, in addition to the articles/documents already directed to be released, all the seized articles/documents out of the 52 items, except those figuring at Serial Nos. 43 to 52, shall stand released on superdari in favour of petitioner No. 1, subject to her furnishing an undertaking before the learned Trial Court that the said articles/documents shall be preserved in their present form and shall be produced before the Investigating Agency or the Court, as and when required during the course of investigation or trial.

16. The articles/documents figuring at Serial Nos. 43 to 52 shall, however, continue to remain in the custody of the Investigating Agency, subject to further orders of the competent Court.

17. The Case Diary, after perusal, be returned to the Investigating Officer.