Know Who Is Parmanand Gupta: How A Rogue Advocate Turned a 21-YO Dalit Student's Identity Into a Weapon for Money in Uttar Pradesh

Lucknow- In a case that exposes a chilling abuse of the legal system, advocate Parmanand Gupta has been sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding a scheme to file 30 false criminal cases, including gang rape and SC/ST atrocities, by exploiting the identity of a vulnerable Dalit woman. This landmark judgment from a Lucknow special court highlights a severe perversion of laws designed to protect the marginalized and serves as a stern warning against such malicious practices.

The case, stemming from a property dispute involving Gupta's wife Sangita Gupta, highlights how vulnerable women from scheduled castes are being exploited as pawns in fabricated complaints to extort money and harass rivals.

Gupta, who posed as Pooja Rawat's lawyer while manipulating her into lodging the bogus FIR, was convicted under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The judgment, delivered on August 19, by Special Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi, emphasizes the growing menace of fake cases under protective laws, urging stricter safeguards to prevent such abuses.

The court detailed how Gupta, leveraging his professional position, coerced Pooja Rawat, a 21-year-old scheduled caste student from Gorakhpur who had come to Lucknow for studies, into becoming a tool for his vendettas. Pooja, who worked as an assistant in Sangita Gupta's beauty parlor, was drawn into the scheme after Gupta took her Aadhaar card, caste certificate, and other documents under the pretext of corrections.

He then used these to fabricate complaints, including the one in question, where Pooja alleged that the Yadav brothers gangraped her on July 24, 2024, at a house in Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow. The FIR, registered as Crime No. 40/2025 under sections 64, 74, 115(2), 316(2), 324(4), 333, 351(3), 352 BNS, 66D IT Act, and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, claimed explicit videos were made and threats issued, invoking the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act to amplify the charges.

Investigations by Assistant Superintendent of Police Radha Raman Singh revealed the entire narrative was concocted. Location data from mobile CDR and call records showed Pooja was nowhere near the alleged crime scene, a house under construction owned by the Yadavs, during the claimed period from March 1 to July 24, 2024. Medical examinations confirmed no signs of assault, and Pooja refused internal examination, later admitting under pressure from Gupta.

Witnesses from the locality denied ever seeing Pooja as a tenant, stating the property had been in the Yadavs' possession for years, with ongoing construction. The probe uncovered that Gupta's wife had an ongoing civil suit (Case No. 747/2024) over Khasra No. 351L, adjacent to the Yadavs' Khasra No. 76, and the false rape allegation was a ploy to pressure them into settling the land dispute.

Victim Turns Approver: Pooja Exposes Gupta's Criminal Conspiracy

The turning point came when Pooja Rawat, realizing the gravity of her involvement, applied to become an approver under sections 343 and 344 BNS on August 4, 2025. Granted pardon on the condition she testify truthfully, Pooja revealed in court how Gupta and his wife exploited her vulnerability. She testified that Gupta used her scheduled caste status to file multiple false cases against his enemies, promising her a share of the compensation money from the government under SC/ST relief schemes. "Parmanand Gupta, the advocate, took my Aadhaar card, photos, income certificate, caste certificate, residence proof, and PAN card under the pretext of correction. Using these, he filed a case in my name without my knowledge," Pooja stated in her examination-in-chief, adding that Gupta scripted her statements for the magistrate and police, forcing her to claim gangrape occurred while she was a tenant in his wife's property.

Pooja's cross-examination further unraveled the plot. She admitted receiving Rs 75,000 as interim relief from the government after the FIR but claimed Gupta pocketed it all. "He told me that if I give statements as per his instructions, I'd get money, but he took everything," she said. When confronted by Gupta in court via video conferencing, Pooja stood firm, denying any real incident and accusing him of fabricating the entire story to harass the Yadavs over the land row. The court noted Gupta's attempts to intimidate her during the hearing, including a request to change her lawyer mid-testimony, which was rejected to prevent tampering.

The judgment quotes Pooja's pivotal testimony: "I am a second-year BA student and came to Lucknow for studies. To support myself, I worked privately. That's how I met Sangita Gupta's beauty parlor, where I assisted. Her husband Parmanand Gupta used my documents to file this case. No such incident of molestation or rape happened with me on July 24, 2024, or before or after. Whatever statement I gave to the magistrate was as per what Parmanand told me; I had to say it under duress. I want to tell the court the truth now so no innocent suffers."

Court's Scathing Remarks on Misuse of Protective Laws

The court pulled no punches in criticizing the rampant misuse of laws meant to protect marginalized communities and women. Judge Tripathi observed that while the SC/ST Act and rape provisions under BNS are crucial for swift justice to victims, their exploitation for personal vendettas undermines public trust in the judiciary. "The present case is a contemporary example of how some criminal-minded members hidden among the respected advocate community are harming its honor," the judgment states, quoting: "The advocate community, which considers ideals from independence struggle leaders and legal luminaries as their role models, is being damaged by such criminal tendencies among a few members."

Highlighting the broader societal impact, the court noted that false cases not only traumatize the accused but also dilute genuine complaints. "False FIRs of rape cause as much distress, humiliation, and damage to the accused as a real rape does to the victim," it quoted from Raju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009 SCC).

The judgment also referenced the Allahabad High Court's order in Fogari vs. State of U.P. (2024), directing police to act under section 217 BNS against false SC/ST complaints, emphasizing: "The Act, meant to provide immediate relief to atrocity victims, is being misused for compensation. A rigorous verification before FIRs is needed, and false filers must be punished to deter abuse."

The court lamented the erosion of professional ethics among some lawyers, stating: "An advocate's profession is noble, integral to justice administration. Bar and Bench are two eyes of justice. But if advocates misuse processes like Gupta did, it pollutes the stream of justice." It directed the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council to bar Gupta from practice and forwarded the judgment for disciplinary action.

Gupta's Pattern of Abuse: Multiple Fake Cases and High Court Scrutiny

Evidence presented showed Gupta's modus operandi extended beyond this case. Pooja testified that Gupta filed 11 false complaints using her name, including against Vipin Yadav (FIR No. 197/2023) where she later recanted, admitting no incident occurred. The Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1793/2025 (decided March 5, 2025), ordered CBI probe into 11 cases filed by Pooja through Gupta, noting: "The informant and her counsel are in collusion... lodging false FIRs for serious offences only to extract money." The court listed 18 more cases Gupta filed in his name, labeling him a "habitual filer of frivolous complaints."

Gupta's history included contempt proceedings for misleading the High Court by filing second bail applications as first ones. In State vs. Mohd. Rizwan (February 9, 2023), the court initiated contempt against him for fraud: "Sri Parmanand Gupta has, prima facie, committed contempt by concealing material facts and misleading the Court." Despite this, Gupta continued his antics, even committing criminal contempt in a Barabanki court on March 10, 2025, by misbehaving during a hearing.

The Lucknow court, invoking its powers under section 15A(7) of the SC/ST Act, directed the District Magistrate to recover any relief paid to Pooja and withhold compensation in future false cases until a prima facie case is established. It also mandated police to note prior complaints in new FIRs involving similar allegations, aiming to curb serial filers.