“Madhya Pradesh High Court | FIR Ordered Against Congress MLA and Education Society Secretary Arif Masood for Forged Solvency Documents Submitted for College Affiliation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal held that the Secretary of an educational society had placed fabricated documents to secure affiliation for a college and directed that an FIR be registered against him and all officials complicit in the matter. The Court further directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to oversee the investigation and ensure accountability. At the same time, as an interim measure, the Court stayed the de-affiliation of the institution to protect the interests of the students currently enrolled, while prohibiting admission of new students without prior permission of the Court.
The matter arose from a petition filed by an educational institution represented through its Secretary, seeking relief against an impugned order dated 09.06.2025. The said order had directed the concerned University to de-affiliate the institution on the ground that the solvency certificate submitted at the time of initial affiliation was fabricated.
The institution, established in 1995, had more than 70,000 alumni, offered 25 courses, employed more than 70 staff members, and had approximately 1,057 students enrolled at the time of the proceedings. The petitioner stated that it was a running institution with significant contribution to education.
The case history traces back to 2005, when a show cause notice was issued after the solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be forged. The petitioner responded by attributing the forgery to agents allegedly outsourced for procuring the document. Despite this, the respondents discovered that the sale deed relied upon had been tampered with, where the purchaser’s name was altered from Rubina Masood, wife of the Secretary of the petitioner society, to the Aman Education Society.
Despite discovery of the forgery as early as 2004, the State did not initiate criminal action. Instead, it allowed the petitioner to submit fresh documents. In 2005, a second show cause notice was issued. Complaints were subsequently lodged in 2005, 2008, and 2011. Inquiries in 2009 and 2011 concluded with the Education Department taking no further action. The petitioner also sought and obtained permission in 2012 to shift its campus to another location, undergoing requisite formalities as though establishing a new institution.
In July 2024, a fresh complaint mirroring earlier allegations was filed. The respondents sought old records from the petitioner, which were provided. The petitioner responded that the matter had already been adjudicated in earlier complaints. However, an inquiry report was submitted on 03.10.2024, followed by further inquiries in April 2025, culminating in the order of 09.06.2025 directing de-affiliation.
The respondents, through the learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the petitioner had committed fraud by submitting fabricated documents not once but twice. They submitted that the first solvency document was forged and the second property transaction purportedly relied upon for solvency was also a fabricated sale deed, as the Sub-Registrar confirmed it was never registered. The respondents further contended that despite the absence of any valid solvency proof, the institution continued to operate for nearly two decades.
The petitioner argued that the allegations were repetitive, previously inquired into, and that it had provided genuine documents subsequently. It further argued that the sudden revival of old allegations was intended to harass the institution and disrupt the functioning of an established educational entity with a large student base.
The statutory provisions referred to in the course of proceedings included Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to cheating and forgery.
The Court recorded strong observations regarding the factual matrix presented before it. It stated: “Certain undisputed facts of this case reveal a shocking state of affairs. The first time that the petitioner has sought affiliation, the document that was given for the purpose of solvency, was undisputedly a fabricated document as so stated by the petitioner but the blame for which was sought to laid at the doorstep of the 'alleged agents'.”
The Bench further observed: “The respondents came to know of the fraud played upon them in the year 2004 itself, but for reasons that prima facie appeared to be pernicious, condoned the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, which prima facie appeared from the actions of the petitioner and gave him a second chance to place on record a genuine documents to prove solvency.”
Commenting on the second solvency document, the Court stated: “Thus, the second property placed as consideration for solvency, was also a forged and fabricated document. Thus, as on date, there is no document on record satisfying the requirement of solvency of the petitioner college.”
The Court expressed its concern at the manner in which the institution continued for nearly 20 years, recording: “The facts disclose a shocking state of affairs of unbridled and unapologetic corruption existing in the State. The Secretary of the petitioner society should have been jailed in the year 2004 itself for having placed a fabricated document for the purpose of solvency and having received affiliation for his college on the basis of that document. Instead, the State was outrageously magnanimous to condone his crime and give another opportunity.”
It further noted: “Interestingly, the second sale deed, which is of 07.10.1999 relating to Khasra No.26 admeasuring 2.83 acres was never verified by the State at all for 20 years after it was offered to prove solvency and its verification was done by the report of the Sub-Registrar dated 31.07.2024.”
The Bench recorded its prima facie conclusion: “Prima facie, it appears that the Secretary of the society was a blue-eyed boy of the dispensation that existed before 2024.” The Court added: “Till date, there has never been any move by the State to register an FIR against Mr. Arif Masood, who is the Secretary of the Aman Education Society running the petitioner college or the Officers, who held responsible positions on that day and whose duty it was, once the fraud was uncovered, to proceed immediately against Mr. Arif Masood and instead condoned his crime.”
The Court also considered the position of students currently enrolled. It recorded: “In the meanwhile, the actual sufferers are the students, who have paid for education in the petitioner college and as on date, there are more than 1,000 students receiving instructions in various disciplines from the petitioner college.”
In conclusion, the Court granted interim relief in favour of the students while directing stringent action against the Secretary of the petitioner society and complicit officials. The Bench ordered: “Under the circumstances, as an interim measure, the petitioner college is permitted to continue, and de-affiliation is stayed for the time being. However, the petitioner college shall not take any fresh students for the next academic session without the permission of this Court, from the date of this order.”
The Bench directed criminal proceedings: “For the alleged offence committed by Mr. Arif Masood in connivance with the Officers who permitted him to place two fraudulent documents one after the other, deserve to be proceeded against. In this regard, this Court directs Police Commissioner, Bhopal to register an FIR against Mr. Arif Masood and such other persons, who may appear to have been complicit from the side of the State in facilitating Mr. Arif Masood in this alleged offence, within three days from the date of this order being uploaded on the website of the Court.”
The Court further ordered oversight of the investigation: “Therefore, this Court deems it essential to constitute an SIT, which would oversee the investigation by the police in the FIR registered pursuant to the directions of this Court. In this regard, this Court requests the Director General of Police, Mr. Kailash Makwana to consider constituting an SIT headed by Mr. Sanjiv Shami presently A.D.G. Telecommunications P.H.Q., Bhopal and two such other Officers to be selected by Mr. Sanjiv Shami as per his confidence and trust, which would oversee the investigation of this case and bring the guilty to book if any.”
Finally, the Court set a timeline: “The Court hopes that the SIT would be able to oversee the investigation and take it to its fruition by filing the necessary report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., within a period of 03 months from the date of this order. It is made clear that the investigation must proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in this order which even otherwise are prima facie observations made on the basis of the records of the case and the arguments put forth by the parties.”
The matter was directed to be listed on 22.09.2025 at the top of the list.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Vivek Krishna Tankha - Senior Advocate with Shri Aryan Shukla and Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocates
For the Respondents: Shri Harpreet S. Ruprah - Additional Advocate General with Shri Akash Malpani - Panel Lawyer
Case Title: Indira Priyadarshani College Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: WP No. 21879 of 2025
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal
