Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has set aside an order directing that charges be framed against a court process server and restored his discharge, finding that the record did not raise “grave suspicion” of fabricating false evidence. The allegations stemmed from a matrimonial dispute in which an ex parte divorce decree was said to have been facilitated through a false summons-service report, including an asserted interpolation on the summons and a claimed non-service on the wife. The Court held that departmental conclusions could not, by themselves, supply substantive criminal material, and that prosecution could not proceed on oral claims about an original document that was never seized or produced before the criminal court.

The revision petition arose from criminal proceedings initiated against a court process server, who was alleged to have fabricated a service report relating to summons issued by a family court in divorce proceedings. The complainant alleged that summons purportedly issued by a court outside Delhi were falsely shown as served at Delhi, enabling an ex parte divorce decree. During investigation, a supplementary charge sheet was filed, though the investigating agency found insufficient material to prosecute the process server.

Also Read: Confession Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court

The Magistrate, however, summoned the accused for the offence of fabricating false evidence under the Indian Penal Code. After considering the material on record, the Magistrate later discharged the accused, citing absence of the original summons, lack of forensic evidence, absence of proof of conspiracy, and insufficiency of material to establish mens rea.

This discharge order was challenged by the complainant before the Sessions Court, which set aside the discharge and directed framing of charges, relying inter alia on departmental disciplinary proceedings and prior summoning orders. The accused thereafter approached the High Court, assailing the revisional court’s interference, the reliance on departmental findings, and the absence of primary documentary evidence forming the basis of the criminal charge.

The Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction and recorded that “the power ought to be exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice” and that revisional proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal. It noted that “an order of discharge passed after due application of mind… could not have been interfered with… merely on the existence of a different view.”

On the central allegation, the Court observed that “the very foundation of the allegation was the Service Report allegedly made by the Petitioner on the original summons issued by the Jaipur Court.” It recorded that “the investigating agency had failed to seize or place on record the original summons containing the alleged false endorsement. The prosecution thus sought to proceed without producing the primary document which allegedly constituted the false evidence. In the absence of the original summons, the allegation of fabrication of false evidence was rendered inherently fragile.”

The Court further stated that "The observation that the original records including the original report were called for and perused during departmental proceedings cannot substitute the requirement of producing the document in accordance with criminal law. Criminal prosecution cannot be founded upon oral assertions or departmental findings regarding the existence of a document without the document itself forming part of the record"

On the revisional court’s reliance on earlier summoning orders, the High Court recorded that “the stage of summoning, framing of charge and consideration of discharge are distinct stages under the CrPC, with distinct thresholds.” It held that treating earlier summoning orders as determinative at the stage of discharge was legally untenable.

The Court also noted that "The trial court therein conclusively recorded that Complainant possessed knowledge of the divorce proceedings and had voluntarily affixed her signatures on the summons...This fundamentally undermines the prosecution's foundation that summons service was falsely reported by Petitioner.”

The Court concluded that "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.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Allows Delhi Govt To Directly Transfer School Uniform Subsidy To EWS/DG Students, Instead Of In-Kind Supply

The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned ASJ is set aside. The order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned MM discharging the Petitioner is restored.”

“Hence, in view of the above, this Court has refrained from re-examining and commenting upon the same, for sake of judicial propriety and institutional discipline and has discharged the Petitioner on merits.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Gopal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, Additional Public Prosecutor, with SI Parveen Kumar, Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. D.P. Faizi, Mr. Aanand Aggarwal, Ms. Darshana Aggarwal, Mr. Himanshu Singh, Mr. Rahul Malik, Ms. Tanya Jain, Ms. Nistha Verma, Advocates

Case Title: Narender Singh v. State
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:454
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 3/2014 & CRL.M.A. 34910/2025, CRL.M.A. 34911/2025
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan