The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that forging judicial summons is a grave offence which strikes the very sanctity of the justice delivery system and even if some compromise has been reached between the parties, the same cannot overshadow the seriousness of the offence or be treated as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail.

The Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed, “The allegations pertain to the preparation and circulation of forged judicial summons which is a grave offence striking at the very sanctity of the justice delivery system…The factum of parties having entered into a compromise, does not dilute the seriousness of allegations involved. Therefore, even if some compromise has been reached inter se between the parties, the same cannot overshadow the seriousness of the offence or be treated as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”

Advocate Sapna Seth represented the Petitioner, while Advocates Gurmeet Singh and Pankaj Nanhera represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail was filed by the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 337, 340 of BNS and Section 66D of I.T Act.

The Petitioner was accused of circulation of forged Judicial summons via WhatsApp, which contained a fake Court stamp. On confirming from the SHO, it was revealed that no such FIR was pending against the person to whom summons were allegedly sent. The forged summons even carry a forged and fictitious UID number.

It was the case of the Petitioner that her name was not mentioned in the FIR and her implication arises solely from the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It was also submitted that the Petitioner being a law graduate would never jeopardise her career in law. It was further contended that an amicable settlement was entered into by the parties concerned.

Court’s Observation

The High Court noted that the matter was not only serious in nature but also affects the dignity of judicial institutions and undermines the public confidence in administration of justice.

“The material collected so far, particularly the disclosure statement of co-accused Deepak Berwal and the recovery of screenshots from his device, prima facie point towards the complicity of the petitioner. At this stage, such evidence cannot be brushed aside as wholly unreliable and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the investigation”, the Court said.

The Court opined that given the facts of the case, the submission that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties would be no avail.

The High Court observed, “The allegations pertain to the preparation and circulation of forged judicial summons which is a grave offence striking at the very sanctity of the justice delivery system. The offence(s) involved in the instant case transcend beyond pertaining to inter-se rights of parties involved and partake the character of affecting sanctity of justice delivery system. Forgoing judicial summons is an offence which have serious ramifications on public confidence in judiciary and undermines public trust and faith in justice delivery system.”

It was held that merely because the parties had entered into a compromise, it will not dilute the seriousness of allegations involved. Therefore, even if some compromise has been reached between the parties, the same cannot overshadow the seriousness of the offence.

The High Court emphasised that the power under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 was meant to protect innocent persons from unnecessary harassment and false implication but the same cannot be extended to those against whom there are prima facie serious allegations supported by material collected during investigation. However, allegation of forging judicial summons is an offence that necessitates a strong and principled judicial response to prevent its recurrence.

Accordingly, given the gravity of the allegations, the nature of offence, the stage of the investigation, the necessity of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

Cause Title: Rinku Sharma V. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:136284)

Click here to read/download Judgment


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Sumeet Goel

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.