-
by Admin
06 December 2025 2:53 AM
“Impersonation of the Judiciary Shakes Public Confidence — Compromise Cannot Wash Away an Attack on Judicial Sanctity.” - Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Rinku Sharma, refusing pre-arrest protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner faced accusations under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 337, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for allegedly conspiring to create and circulate forged judicial summons through WhatsApp, impersonating the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
Justice Goel, in a sternly worded judgment, underscored that such acts “strike at the sanctity of the justice delivery system and erode the public’s faith in judicial institutions.” Observing that custodial interrogation was imperative to trace the digital trail of the forgery, the Court held that “granting anticipatory bail in offences undermining the very foundation of justice would send a wrong message to society and embolden such misconduct.”
“Forgery of a Court Summons Is Not a Private Wrong — It Is an Assault on Judicial Authority Itself”
The case originated from an FIR filed on June 9, 2025, at Cyber Crime Police Station, Hisar, alleging that forged judicial summons had been circulated via WhatsApp to one Sunil by co-accused Deepak Berwal. These summons falsely bore the seal of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, carried a fake UID number, and directed appearance on June 12, 2025—a date that fell during court summer vacation.
The forged summons falsely claimed that an FIR under the BNS had been registered and directed the recipient to pay ₹10,00,000 as “maintenance” to one Mishi Sharma. When the matter reached the real court, verification confirmed that no such FIR or summons existed, prompting the Additional Sessions Judge’s staff to file a formal complaint.
Investigations revealed that the fake documents were allegedly sent from the WhatsApp account of co-accused Deepak, who, during interrogation, disclosed that he acted on the instructions of the petitioner, Rinku Sharma, allegedly motivated by a matrimonial dispute involving Sunil’s son, Abhishek. Screenshots recovered from Deepak’s phone reportedly contained chats and forged summons forwarded from Rinku Sharma’s number.
“Custodial Interrogation Is Not a Ritual — It Is a Tool to Uncover the Digital Conspiracy”
While rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail, Justice Goel relied upon the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022) and State v. Anil Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187], reiterating that the absence of a demand for custodial interrogation cannot by itself justify anticipatory bail.
Quoting from Anil Sharma, the Court emphasized: “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect protected by pre-arrest bail. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspect knows that she is insulated by an anticipatory bail order.”
Justice Goel observed that digital forensics, device tracing, and authentication of chats required free and effective investigation, which could not be achieved while the accused remained protected from arrest.
“In an offence of this nature, custodial interrogation is essential to unearth the origin of the forged documents, examine the devices used, and expose the wider conspiracy behind impersonating a court authority.”
“Compromise Cannot Cleanse a Crime Against the Justice System”
During arguments, counsel for both parties mentioned that a compromise had been reached. However, Justice Goel categorically rejected its relevance, declaring that forging judicial documents transcends private disputes.
“Offences of this nature strike at the dignity of judicial institutions and public confidence in justice. Even if parties reach a settlement, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of impersonating a court. Such acts are not personal wrongs but institutional offences.”
The Court further held that misuse of court insignia, seals, or summons “erodes the very legitimacy of the justice delivery mechanism.” Thus, even a purported compromise could not justify leniency or anticipatory protection.
“Section 482 BNSS Protects the Innocent, Not the Manipulators of Judicial Authority”
The petitioner’s argument that her name was not mentioned in the FIR and that she was falsely implicated on the basis of co-accused’s disclosure was rejected. The Court noted that prima facie evidence, including screenshots showing her mobile number and WhatsApp chats, connected her directly to the offence.
“The defence of false implication or victimization may be examined during trial but cannot, at this stage, eclipse the material linking the petitioner to the offence,” the Court held.
Justice Goel cautioned that granting pre-arrest protection in such matters would imperil public faith in the judiciary, observing that “protection of offenders in crimes targeting the justice system would create insecurity among citizens and diminish the authority of courts.”
“Forgery of Court Documents Demands a Firm Judicial Response — No Shield of Anticipatory Bail”
In conclusion, the High Court ruled:
“The gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the requirement of custodial interrogation for fair and thorough investigation lead this Court to hold that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.”
The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were confined solely to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial.
Justice Goel’s order thus sends a strong signal that the judiciary will not tolerate attempts to forge, impersonate, or misuse its name—acts which “undermine the temple of justice and the trust that the public reposes in it.”
Date of Decision: September 29, 2025
