Allahabad HC Orders Criminal Complaint Against Advocate and Petitioner After FSL Finds Signature Mismatch in PIL Proceedings
The Allahabad High Court directed its Registrar to file a criminal complaint before a Magistrate against an advocate and petitioner after a Forensic Science Laboratory report found their signatures on court documents did not match.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, sitting at the Chief Justice's Court, on 14 July 2026 ordered the Registrar (Selection & Appointment) of the Court to lodge a written criminal complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate of First Class, Prayagraj against Advocate Ashraf Ali and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta. The direction came after the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow concluded that specimen signatures provided by Ashraf Ali did not match questioned signatures on several court documents filed in PIL No. 450 of 2025. The Court recorded a prima facie satisfaction that both persons had committed the offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and invoked Section 379 of BNSS, which governs the procedure for making such a complaint. Further hearing of the PIL itself has been deferred pending the Magistrate's decision on the complaint.
The PIL and the Allegations That Triggered the Application
PIL No. 450 of 2025 was filed by Sangeeta Gupta, herself an advocate, through Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate. The petition sought directions to rectify alleged illegalities in the appointment of the Manager of Tamkuhiraj Education Society and Fateh Memorial Inter College, Tamkuhi, District Kushinagar, said to have occurred in an election held in contravention of Section 16(A)(5) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Respondent no. 5 — connected with the management of Fateh Memorial Inter College — filed an application before the Court seeking prosecution of Sangeeta Gupta under Section 379 of BNSS for filing a false affidavit. The application was supported by an affidavit of the son of the Manager of the institution. The affidavit made serious allegations: that while filing an application for withdrawal of the petition, Sangeeta Gupta forged the signatures of Mr. Parijat Srivastava, Advocate (counsel for respondent no. 5), falsely showing that he had received a copy of the withdrawal application.
Beyond that single act of alleged forgery, the affidavit raised a broader charge: that Ashraf Ali is a fictitious identity created by one Amit Pratap Singh (“A.P. Singh”), Advocate, and that A.P. Singh uses Ashraf Ali's enrolment credentials, mobile number, and residential address to file cases. The affidavit annexed a list of dozens of writ petitions in which either Sangeeta Gupta appeared as petitioner with Ashraf Ali or A.P. Singh as counsel, or Ashraf Ali appeared as petitioner represented by A.P. Singh, or the roles were reversed.
The Court's order dated 13 November 2025 noted that the Registrar (Civil-A1) had, pursuant to a direction issued on 22 September 2025, submitted a report showing that 23 petitions had been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by or through these three persons, the majority of which had been withdrawn.
Proceedings That Exposed the Alleged Impersonation
The pattern of non-appearance by the petitioner's counsel ran through several hearing dates from March 2025 onward. On 19 March 2025, no counsel for the petitioner appeared. On 20 March 2025, someone joining through a video-conferencing link identified himself as Ashraf Ali and stated he was in Delhi and would argue the matter on the next date. On 31 July 2025, the Court issued notice on the Section 379 application and directed that counsel for the petitioner be served personally and remain present.
On 20 August 2025, the Court recorded an unusual development: respondent no. 5's counsel, Mr. Nipun Singh, stated that on the previous date a person had appeared before the Court claiming to be Ashraf Ali, but that on 20 August 2025 a different person was now appearing, again claiming to be Ashraf Ali. The Court directed that the person claiming to be Ashraf Ali put his signatures on the order sheet before the Bench Secretary. The Court also directed the petitioner to remain present on the next date along with Mr. Ashraf Ali.
When signatures were subsequently compared, the Court observed that the signatures made on the order sheet on 20 August 2025 were “apparently different” from signatures appearing as ‘A. Ali’ on the writ petition and withdrawal application, and also differed from signatures on Annexure RA-3, a Delivery Run Sheet issued by Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. annexed to the rejoinder affidavit of respondent no. 5.
Respondent no. 5's rejoinder affidavit added further detail: Mr. Parijat Srivastava stated that he had never met Sangeeta Gupta either before or after the PIL was filed, making it impossible for him to have received the withdrawal application in person. The signatures purportedly endorsing his receipt were said to be forged and fabricated, and the rejoinder pointed to the discrepancy between those signatures and his signatures on the Vakalatnama on record.
The FSL Reference and the Bench's Reasoning on Section 379 BNSS
By its detailed order dated 13 November 2025, the Division Bench expressed prima facie satisfaction that signatures of Ashraf Ali on different documents in the proceedings were inconsistent with each other. Rather than deciding the matter summarily, the Court chose to refer the disputed signatures to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow for scientific comparison.
The FSL was directed to compare and verify: signatures of ‘Ashraf Ali’/‘A. Ali’ on the original writ petition, the original Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No. 03 of 2025, the page of the order sheet containing the office report dated 19 August 2025 on which signatures were made on 20 August 2025, and the original Delivery Run Sheet from Trackon Couriers. The FSL was also asked to compare the signatures attributed to Mr. Parijat Srivastava on the margin of page 1 of the withdrawal application against his signatures on the Vakalatnama dated 18 March 2025.
The FSL sent a preliminary communication dated 28 November 2025 offering a prima facie opinion but requiring specimen signatures from both Ashraf Ali and Parijat Srivastava to issue a definitive finding. On 6 January 2026, the Court directed both to be present. On 29 January 2026, both appeared, and the Registrar (Selection & Appointment) was directed to obtain specimen signatures on 30 January 2026 and transmit them to the FSL along with the original documents already sent.
The FSL report dated 25 February 2026 was received in a sealed cover and opened in Court on 10 March 2026. Its conclusions, as reproduced in the order, established that the person whose specimen signatures were marked S-1 to S-12 did not sign the questioned documents marked Q-1; the person whose specimen signatures were marked S-13 to S-24 did not sign the questioned documents marked Q-2; the person whose specimen signatures were marked S-25 to S-36 did not sign the questioned documents marked Q-3 to Q-16; and the person whose specimen signatures were marked S-37 to S-48 did not sign the questioned documents marked Q-18 and Q-19. In short, across multiple sets of documents, the questioned signatures did not match the specimen signatures provided by the persons who claimed to have made them.
In his personal affidavit dated 14 May 2026, Ashraf Ali offered a medical explanation: he stated he suffered from polyuria and polydipsia, which he claimed prevented him from replicating his earlier signatures. The Court considered this explanation alongside the FSL findings. The Bench was not persuaded. Having heard the parties and examined the record, the Court held it was prima facie satisfied that Ashraf Ali and Sangeeta Gupta had committed the offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS, which relates to offences affecting the course of justice in relation to proceedings before a court.
Section 379 of BNSS prescribes the procedure for courts in such cases. Where a court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into any offence referred to in Section 215(1)(b), it may record a finding, make a written complaint, send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction, and bind over persons to appear and give evidence. Under Section 379(3)(a), where the court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint is to be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. The Bench also referred to Chapter II Rule 1(xvi) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
The Persons Named and the Broader Pattern
The complaint directed by the Court names two persons:
Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate (Enrolment No. A/A 0249/2022), son of Ahmad Hussain, with addresses at House No. 79, Patel Nagar, Ward-06, Tamkuhi Road, Sewrahi, District Kushinagar, and at 401/280F, B.H.S. Allahpur, Prayagraj.
Sangeeta Gupta, petitioner, daughter of Late Daya Shankar Gupta, resident of Subhash Chowk, Tilak Nagar, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar.
The Court's orders during the proceedings had also recorded allegations against A.P. Singh (Amit Pratap Singh), Advocate. The affidavit of respondent no. 5 stated that A.P. Singh and Ashraf Ali share the same residential address and the same mobile number (9793149321), and that the profile photograph on that number is of A.P. Singh. It was further stated that A.P. Singh has a history of criminal cases. The Registrar's report had identified 23 PIL-type petitions filed by or through this group. An earlier writ petition, Writ-C No. 10797 of 2023 (Parasuram Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 others), was noted in the proceedings as having been declined by this Court on account of pending civil proceedings between the parties, that dispute being Original Suit No. 25 of 2021 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasia, Kushinagar.
While the complaint as directed covers Ashraf Ali and Sangeeta Gupta, the Court's reasoning throughout the orders draws attention to a pattern of conduct involving all three persons acting in collusion, with the institutional infrastructure of enrolment identity, contact details, and residential address being shared or fabricated.
Order and Directions
The application under Section 379 of BNSS was disposed of on 14 July 2026 with the following directions:
The Registrar (Selection & Appointment) is authorised and directed to make a written complaint against Ashraf Ali and Sangeeta Gupta, in light of the orders passed in the petition and the observations in the final order.
After signing the complaint, the Registrar (Selection & Appointment) shall send it to the jurisdictional Magistrate of First Class, Prayagraj, and shall take all steps as indicated in Chapter XXVIII of BNSS.
The entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks from 14 July 2026.
The Registrar (Selection & Appointment) is authorised to obtain copies of the FSL report and any other document forming part of the record of the petition and file the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate as and when required.
The jurisdictional Magistrate, Prayagraj shall, on receiving the complaint, proceed in accordance with law as per the procedure prescribed in BNSS, 2023.
Further consideration of the merits of PIL No. 450 of 2025 has been deferred, the Court finding that the very institution of the proceedings is prima facie a result of forgery, fabrication, and misconduct. The parties may move an application for listing of the petition once the Magistrate's proceedings on the complaint have concluded.