Allahabad High Court Directs Criminal Prosecution Of Litigant & Her Lawyer For 'Forging' Signatures On Affidavits In PIL
Matter will be tried by jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj.
The Allahabad High Court has ordered criminal proceedings against a litigant and her advocate after finding prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication in a public interest litigation filed before it.
The Court acted after a forensic report revealed discrepancies in the signatures appearing on documents filed in the case.
“…explanation offered by...Advocate coupled with findings recorded by FSL in its report, we are prima facie satisfied that...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 as per provisions contained under Section 379 BNSS and other allied provisions," the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed.
The Court was dealing with a PIL filed by Sangeeta Gupta through an advocate, seeking directions to rectify alleged irregularities in the appointment of the Manager of Tamkuhiraj Education Society and Fateh Memorial Inter College in Kushinagar district.
The controversy arose after one of the Respondents moved an application under Section 379 BNSS (for prosecuting individuals who commit forgery or fabricate evidence), alleging that the petitioner had forged the signatures of the Respondent's counsel on an application seeking withdrawal of the PIL. Respondent also claimed that the advocate representing the petitioner was using a fictitious identity.
The Respondent further alleged that different individuals had appeared before the Court as the petitioner's counsel on different dates, including through video conferencing, and that signatures appearing on various documents filed in the proceedings did not match.
Taking note of the allegations, the High Court had earlier directed the FSL, Lucknow, to examine the signatures appearing on the PIL, the withdrawal application, the court record and other related documents.
After the FSL reported discrepancies in the signatures, the advocate appearing for the petitioner filed a personal affidavit claiming that he was suffering from “Polyuria–Polydipsia”, owing to which he was unable to reproduce his earlier signatures accurately.
Unconvinced, the Court said prima facie offence was made out against the petitioner and her advocate on record. It observed,
“As the offence has been committed before this Court, a complaint is to be made in terms of Section 379(1)(b) of BNSS by this Court and it may be signed by such officer as this Court may appoint, as indicated in sub-section (3)(a) of Section 379 BNSS.”
Directing registration of a complaint against the petitioner and her advocate on record, the Court observed,
“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 on the complaint so made and it shall be open for the parties to move application for listing of this petition accordingly.”
Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashraf Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nipun Singh, senior advocate assisted by Parijat Srivastava