In a significant legal development concerning the integrity of court proceedings, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ordered the registration of a formal criminal complaint against an advocate and a petitioner for alleged forgery, impersonation, and filing a false affidavit. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra directed the court’s Registrar (Selection & Appointment) to lodge a written complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate of First Class in Prayagraj. The decision follows a detailed forensic investigation which revealed that signatures on critical court documents had been forged and that different individuals had impersonated the petitioner’s counsel.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 450 of 2025) filed by Sangeeta Gupta through her counsel, Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate. The petition sought directions to rectify alleged illegalities in the appointment of the Manager of the Tamkuhiraj Education Society and Fateh Memorial Inter College, Tamkuhi, in the Kushinagar district. The petitioner asserted that the election for the management committee was held arbitrarily and in direct contravention of Section 16(A)(5) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
However, the litigation took a dramatic turn when Respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The respondent sought the prosecution of the petitioner for filing a false affidavit. According to the application, the petitioner had forged the signature of the respondent’s counsel, Mr. Parijat Srivastava, on a withdrawal application to falsely show that he had received a copy of the document. Furthermore, the respondent alleged that Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate, was a fictitious identity created by another advocate, Mr. Amit Pratap Singh (A.P. Singh), to file fraudulent cases, and that Mr. A.P. Singh had impersonated Mr. Ashraf Ali during video-conferencing hearings.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for Respondent No. 5 argued that the petitioner, who is herself an advocate, along with Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Ashraf Ali, was committing a gross abuse of the court’s process. They maintained that the trio launched and defended multiple frivolous proceedings using fabricated documents, forged signatures, and impersonated appearances. The respondent placed on record details of 23 other public interest litigations filed in similar patterns, many of which were subsequently withdrawn.
In response, the petitioner, Sangeeta Gupta, appearing in person, and advocates Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Ashraf Ali, denied the allegations of a fake identity. They asserted that both advocates were real individuals, present before the court with identity proofs. They explained that their identical residential address and phone number were due to a landlord-tenant relationship between them. The petitioner requested that the PIL simply be dismissed as withdrawn and argued that she had personally delivered the withdrawal application copy to Mr. Parijat Srivastava, who received it himself.
Regarding the mismatched signatures, Mr. Ashraf Ali filed a personal affidavit explaining that he suffers from Polyuria and Polydipsia, medical conditions that physically prevented him from replicating his prior, exact signatures.
The Court’s Analysis and Forensic Findings
To resolve the controversy surrounding the disputed identities and signatures, the High Court had previously directed the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Lucknow to scientifically analyze the signatures on the original writ petition, the withdrawal application, the court’s order sheet, and other related documents. Specimen signatures of both Mr. Ashraf Ali and Mr. Parijat Srivastava were formally obtained under supervision on January 30, 2026, and sent for comparative forensic testing.
The FSL report, dated February 25, 2026, concluded that the signatures did not match. Specifically, the forensic analysis established that the individual who provided the sample signatures did not write the disputed signatures on the primary petition and the withdrawal application.
Reviewing the entire sequence of events, the FSL findings, and the medical explanation offered by the petitioner’s counsel, the bench found the explanation to be entirely unsatisfactory. In its analysis of the application under Section 379 BNSS, the Court noted:
“the signatures of Ashraf Ali as counsel for the petitioner (Sangeeta Gupta) are differently put on different documents in these proceedings and considering the allegations of impersonation, forgery, fabrication and identity of the persons involved or appearing in these proceedings, we deem it appropriate to direct examination of signatures of Ashraf Ali by referring the matter to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow (‘FSL’) and further orders shall be passed after receiving report from the said FSL.”
Following the receipt of the FSL report, 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 as per provisions contained under Section 379 BNSS and other allied provisions.”
The Court’s Decision
Based on these findings, the High Court disposed of the application under Section 379 of the BNSS with explicit directions to initiate criminal prosecution. The Court authorized and directed its Registrar (Selection & Appointment) to draft and sign a formal written complaint against Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate, and the petitioner, Sangeeta Gupta.
The Registrar has been ordered to submit this complaint to the jurisdictional First Class Magistrate in Prayagraj within six weeks, alongside relevant records and the FSL report. The Magistrate will then proceed with the trial in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the BNSS, 2023.
Awaiting the final decision of the jurisdictional Magistrate on the forgery complaint, the High Court deferred further consideration of the main PIL, noting:
“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 Details
Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta Versus State of U.P. and 4 others
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 450 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Kshitij Shailendra
Date: July 14, 2026
