The Allahabad High Court has ordered a forensic examination into allegations of forged signatures, impersonation, and fabrication in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), after observing prima facie discrepancies in signatures attributed to one of the petitioner’s counsels.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra deferred a decision on an application to prosecute the petitioner for filing a false affidavit. Instead, the Court directed the Registrar General to send several original case documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Lucknow, for a comparative analysis of signatures.
The order was passed in PIL No. 450 of 2025 (Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others), on a criminal miscellaneous application filed by respondent no. 5.
Background of the Application
The application, filed under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), sought the prosecution of the petitioner, Sangeeta Gupta, for filing a false affidavit. The application, supported by an affidavit, alleged that the petitioner, in filing an application to withdraw the PIL, “forged signatures of Shri Parijat Srivastava, Advocate as a counsel for respondent no. 5, fraudulently showing the receipt of copy of the withdrawal application by him.”
Allegations by Respondent No. 5
The respondent no. 5 levelled serious allegations, claiming that Shri Ashraf Ali, counsel for the petitioner, “is a fictitious identity created by Shri Amit Pratap Singh (‘A.P. Singh’), Advocate” for “nefarious designs.” It was further alleged that both advocates “depict their same residential address as well as phone number.”
The affidavit also stated that A.P. Singh and respondent no. 5 are contestants in a separate civil dispute (Original Suit No. 25 of 2021). The respondent alleged that A.P. Singh “has a history of various criminal cases” and that he “keep on filing frivolous petitions” in collusion with the petitioner and Ashraf Ali.
A key allegation was that of impersonation. The respondent claimed that despite court orders, Ashraf Ali “avoided appearance,” and “only A.P. Singh appeared through video conferencing mode claiming himself to be Ashraf Ali.”
In a rejoinder affidavit, respondent no. 5 stated that their counsel, Shri Parijat Srivastava, “had never even met Ms. Sangeeta Gupta (the petitioner) either before filing of PIL or thereafter and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to receive copy of withdrawal application.” It was asserted that the signatures of Parijat Srivastava were “forged and fabricated.”
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner, Sangeeta Gupta, filed an objection denying the allegations. She contended that she “herself had provided copy of the withdrawal application to Mr. Parijat Srivastava, counsel for respondent no. 5 and he had himself received the same.”
Appearing before the Court, Ms. Sangeeta Gupta (petitioner), Shri A.P. Singh, and Shri Ashraf Ali, Advocates, submitted that the allegations of a “fake identity” were incorrect, as both A.P. Singh and Ashraf Ali were “present before the Court with proof of their identity.” They explained the shared address and phone number by stating that “both reside in the same house and there is a relationship of landlord-tenant between the two.”
Court’s Analysis and Prima Facie Findings
The bench noted that the Court was focusing “only on the merits of the application under Section 379 of BNSS” and not the merits of the PIL at this stage.
The Bench reproduced a series of orders from previous hearings. An order dated August 20, 2025, recorded the submission of respondent no. 5’s counsel that “on the previous date, some other person appeared and he stated that he is Ashraf Ali and, now, a different person is appearing, claiming himself to be Ashraf Ali.” On that date, the Court had required the person “claiming himself to be Ashraf Ali” to sign the order sheet.
Upon examining the records, the Court made a crucial observation: “Signatures of ‘Ashraf Ali’ or claiming to be Ashraf Ali were made in the margin of order sheet on 20.08.2025… The said signatures are apparently different from the signatures put as ‘A. Ali’ on the writ petition as well as withdrawal application. Even on Annexure No. RA-3 attached to the rejoinder affidavit, different signatures of Ashraf Ali signed as ‘Ashraf’ appear.”
The Court, after “considering the allegations of impersonation, forgery, fabrication and identity of the persons involved or appearing in these proceedings,” stated that it was “prima facie, satisfied that the signatures of Ashraf Ali as counsel for the petitioner (Sangeeta Gupta) are differently put on different documents in these proceedings.”
The Bench concluded that it was “appropriate to direct examination of signatures of Ashraf Ali by referring the matter to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow (‘FSL’).”
The Court’s Directions
The High Court issued the following directions:
- The Registrar General shall send four original documents to the FSL, Lucknow: (a) the original writ petition, (b) the original withdrawal application, (c) the original page of the order sheet dated 19.08.2025 containing the alleged signature of Ashraf Ali, and (d) the original Vakalatnama of Shri Parijat Srivastava.
- The FSL is to “scientifically compare and verify” the signatures of ‘Ashraf Ali’/’A. Ali’ on the petition, withdrawal application, order sheet, and a courier receipt (Annexure No. RA-3) “indicating as to whether signatures on all the above documents have been made by one and the same person or not.”
- The FSL shall also compare the alleged signature of Shri Parijat Srivastava on the withdrawal application with his signature on the Vakalatnama.
- The FSL is directed to send a clear report in a sealed cover within one month of receiving the documents.
The petition has been listed for further hearing on January 6, 2026.
