Allahabad High Court Orders Criminal Prosecution Of Petitioner And Advocate For Fabricated Court Documents

In a stern message against professional misconduct, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ordered the registration of a criminal complaint against a petitioner and her legal counsel. Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra directed the Registrar of the Court to initiate proceedings under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following evidence of illicit forgery in judicial filings.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The controversy originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sangeeta Gupta, which sought to challenge the legality of appointments and elections within the Tamkuhiraj Education Society and Fateh Memorial Inter College in Kushinagar district. As the litigation progressed, the respondent moved an application under Section 379 BNSS—the provision governing offenses related to the administration of justice—alleging that the petitioner had forged signatures on a withdrawal application. Furthermore, the respondent claimed that the petitioner's advocate, Ashraf Ali, was operating under a fictitious identity, colluding with others to flood the court with frivolous petitions.

Arguments and Forensic Findings

The petitioner denied the allegations, maintaining that the documents were genuine. However, the High Court adopted a proactive stance, mandating a forensic examination of the disputed signatures. Documents were submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Lucknow, including the original writ petition, withdrawal applications, and order sheets.

When the FSL report indicated marked discrepancies in the signatures provided, the advocate for the petitioner claimed he suffered from a medical condition—"Polyuria-Polydipsia"—which he argued prevented the consistent replication of his signature. The court, however, remained unsatisfied with the explanation, noting that the evidence pointed to a calculated abuse of the judicial process.

Key Observations

The bench highlighted the gravity of the situation, stating:

"We are prima facie satisfied that Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta have committed offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS and, therefore, the matter has to be tried by jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj."

The court further emphasized that:

"Since the very institution of proceedings of this petition is, prima facie, found a result of forgery/fabrication and misdeeds, the Court defers further consideration of the matter awaiting decision by the jurisdictional Magistrate."

The Court’s Mandate

The High Court has now authorized the Registrar (Selection & Appointment) to lodge a formal written complaint against Sangeeta Gupta and the advocate involved. This complaint must be submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate of the First Class at Prayagraj within six weeks.

The decision serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing that the sanctity of judicial records remains non-negotiable. By deferring the underlying PIL until the allegations of forgery are resolved by the Magistrate, the court has effectively halted potentially fraudulent litigation, signaling a robust judicial intolerance for the fabrication of evidence within the system.