The Allahabad High Court has directed the filing of a criminal complaint against an advocate and the petitioner in a public interest litigation (PIL) after a forensic examination of disputed signatures. The Bench said there was prima facie material indicating that offences connected with documents filed before the Court required examination by the jurisdictional Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by Sangeeta Gupta questioning the legality of the election of the Manager of Tamkuhiraj Education Society and Fateh Memorial Inter College in Kushinagar. During the proceedings, Respondent No. 5 moved an application under Section 379 of the BNSS alleging that signatures appearing on a withdrawal application and other court documents had been forged.
The respondent further alleged that the signatures of advocate Parijat Srivastava had been fabricated on the withdrawal application and requested prosecution for filing false material before the Court. These allegations led the Bench to examine the issue independently before deciding the PIL itself.
Court Orders Forensic Examination
As the allegations involved disputed signatures and possible impersonation, the High Court referred the documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Lucknow. The Court directed the laboratory to compare the signatures appearing on the writ petition, withdrawal application, order sheets and other relevant records with specimen signatures obtained during the proceedings.
After receiving the initial opinion, the Court also directed fresh specimen signatures to be collected from the concerned advocates so that the FSL could provide a final scientific opinion.
Court's Observations
The Bench examined the FSL report along with the explanation offered by advocate Ashraf Ali, who claimed that a medical condition had affected the consistency of his signatures.
However, after considering the forensic findings and the material placed on record, the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed further.
The Bench observed,
“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 also noted that since the alleged acts related to documents produced during judicial proceedings, the statutory procedure under Section 379 of the BNSS had to be followed.
Court's Decision
Disposing of the application under Section 379 BNSS, the High Court authorised the Registrar (Selection & Appointment) to lodge a written complaint against advocate Ashraf Ali and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta before the jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj.
The Registrar has been directed to complete the process within six weeks and place all necessary documents, including the FSL report, before the Magistrate whenever required.
The Court further directed that the Magistrate shall proceed strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the BNSS.
The Bench also deferred further consideration of the PIL, observing that the issue regarding the institution of the petition would await the outcome of proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Case Details
Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 450 of 2025
Judge: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra
Decision Date: July 14, 2026
