The Delhi High Court discharged a process server accused of fabricating a false service report related to the service of a summons, holding that the material on record did not disclose a “grave suspicion” against him that would justify framing of charges. The Court emphasised that findings in departmental proceedings cannot be treated as substantive evidence in a criminal trial, and that a criminal prosecution cannot be founded on oral assertions alone regarding a document that was neither seized nor produced before the Court during the trial. The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the process server, Narender Singh, who challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside an earlier order of discharge passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in relation to offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with giving false evidence.
The prosecution case alleged that while Narender Singh was posted as a process server in the Nazarat Branch of the Tis Hazari Courts, he had manipulated an original summons issued by a Jaipur Court. It was contended that he inserted the word “Saket” in different handwriting and ink on the original document, marked the summons to himself so that he could record service on his own behalf, and instead of personally serving the complainant-wife, handed over the summons to her husband. According to the prosecution, the husband then obtained the wife’s signature fraudulently, and the process server subsequently submitted a false service report to the court, falsely recording that due service had been effected. On the basis of that false report, an ex parte divorce decree was passed against the complainant in 2002.
The High Court’s order noted that the investigating agency had in fact initially submitted a supplementary chargesheet that gave the process server a clean chit, finding insufficient material to prosecute him. Despite this, the trial court had taken the matter forward, and the Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the discharge order of the Magistrate. In allowing the revision petition, the High Court held that neither the departmental enquiry findings nor oral allegations could stand in place of primary evidence required in a criminal trial. The bench observed that the material on record did not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioner that could justify framing of charges.
In its reasoning, the Court stressed that reliable primary evidence must form the basis of criminal proceedings, and that departmental findings, which are essentially internal administrative conclusions, cannot be elevated to the status of conclusive evidence in a criminal prosecution. The High Court further pointed out that the prosecution had failed to seize or produce the relevant document said to have been tampered with, and that mere assertions by prosecution witnesses regarding the document without its production before the Court could not support a criminal charge. Given the absence of tangible evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged fabrication, the Court found that the necessary threshold of “grave suspicion” was not established.
The High Court’s ruling reflects the well-settled legal principle that criminal liability must be grounded in credible and admissible evidence, and that courts must carefully distinguish between administrative findings and the evidentiary standards required in criminal trials. By discharging the process server, the Court reinforced that the prosecution must present proper primary evidence before a charge can be sustained or framed, and that internal departmental records or reports cannot by themselves suffice to establish criminal culpability in a court of law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.