Departmental Penalty Not Primary Evidence For Framing Charges Against Process Server: Delhi High Court In Forged Summons Case

It was observed that departmental proceedings operate on a different standard of proof and are intended for internal discipline, not determination of criminal guilt. In the absence of direct or reliable circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged alteration of the summons, the conviction was held to be unsustainable.

Consequentially, holding that in the absence of the original summons containing the alleged false endorsement, the foundation of the offence under Section 193 of the IPC (fabricating false evidence) itself collapses, a bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “In the present case, the departmental proceedings, being administrative in character, culminated in a finding of ‘misconduct’ based on the standard of ‘preponderance of probabilities’, with the limited object of enforcing service discipline, wherein the original Service Report was not even exhibited. In contrast, the framing of charges in a criminal case requires the Court to arrive at a satisfaction that the material placed on record discloses a ‘grave suspicion’ against the accused. A criminal court has to confine its scrutiny to the material collected by the prosecution and placed on record along with the charge-sheet. Unless the material relied upon in departmental proceedings is independently brought on record and proved in accordance with law, such findings cannot be elevated to substantive evidence in a criminal case or form the basis of framing of criminal charges against the delinquent official”.

“In the opinion of this Court, in the absence of primary evidence in regard to allegation of forgery, i.e. the alleged forged document, the continuation of trial, only on the basis of allegations and the opinion in departmental proceedings, would be an abuse of the process of Court. Once it is apparent that the offence cannot be proved in the absence of primary evidence, the proceedings ought to be closed”, the bench further noted.

Advocate R. Gopal appeared for the petitioner and, Sunil Kumar Gautam APP for the State appeared.

The present matter arises from a long-standing matrimonial dispute in which the complainant, alleged that her husband had fraudulently obtained an ex-parte divorce decree from Jaipur Family Court without her knowledge and subsequently remarried, while continuing marital relations with her.

Subsequent to which, an FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 493 IPC, and during investigation, allegations surfaced that summons in the divorce proceedings had been falsely shown as served upon her through a fabricated service report prepared by a process server posted at Tis Hazari Courts.

It was alleged that the process server manipulated the summons, marked the process to himself, and submitted a false report of service in connivance with the husband. Though the investigating agency later gave him a clean chit, the Magistrate summoned him for trial under Section 193 IPC for fabricating false evidence.

However, he was discharged in 2012 for lack of original judicial records, forensic proof, or evidence of conspiracy or intent, but the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the discharge in 2013, relying on departmental findings and circumstances suggesting false reporting, leading to the present revision before the High Court.

The High Court, thus noted that:

-The original summons which allegedly contained the fabricated endorsement, was never seized or produced.

-No forensic or handwriting opinion linked the alleged interpolation to the accused.

-There was no evidence of conspiracy or nexus between the process server and the husband.

-The complainant had admitted her signatures and handwriting on the summons.

Therefore, that bench was of the opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the limits of revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own view over that of the Magistrate without demonstrating perversity or illegality in the discharge order. The earlier summoning order, the Court clarified, does not automatically preclude discharge at a later stage, as summoning, framing of charge, and discharge are distinct stages with different legal thresholds.

Cause Title: Narender Singh V. State [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:454]

Appearances:

Petitioner: R. Gopal, Advocate

Respondent: Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Parveen Kumar, PS Malviya Nagar, Ashish Aggarwal, D.P. Faizi, Aanand Aggarwal, Darshana Aggarwal, Himanshu Singh, Rahul Malik, Tanya Jain and Nistha Verma, Advocates.