The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), refusing to quash a summoning order against a man accused of filing forged bank statements in a child maintenance case.
The Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed that filing a forged document before a court is an attempt to “pervert the course of justice” and creates an unfair advantage, thereby insulting the majesty of law.
Case Background
The case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the Applicant, Gaurav Mehta, and Opposite Party No. 2 (his former wife). The parties were divorced in 2007, and the wife subsequently filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance of their minor son.
During the maintenance proceedings, the court concerned passed an order on February 26, 2019, directing the Applicant to submit his income tax returns, bank account details, and salary slips for the preceding three years. In compliance, the Applicant submitted statements from his ICICI Bank account for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14.
The Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that the statements filed were forged and fabricated to mislead the court regarding the Applicant’s actual income. Upon inquiry and police investigation, discrepancies were found between the statements submitted by the Applicant in court and the actual records obtained from ICICI Bank. It was alleged that various credit and debit entries were deleted to conceal financial information.
Consequently, an FIR was lodged, and the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Magistrate issued a summoning order on October 17, 2019, which the Applicant challenged before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the Applicant argued that the documents submitted were merely “excerpts” of the statement of account and not the complete records. It was submitted that the maintenance application was eventually allowed, granting Rs. 15,000 per month to the child, which was the full amount claimed.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, the counsel contended that forgery under Section 463 IPC requires an intent to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Since the maintenance was decided in favor of the son, the Applicant argued there was no wrongful loss, rendering the proceedings unmaintainable.
Appearing in person, Opposite Party No. 2 argued that the maintenance litigation had dragged on for ten years due to the Applicant’s conduct. She submitted that the Applicant deleted specific entries transferring amounts to other bank accounts to deceive the court.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court conducted a detailed comparison of the bank statements filed by the Applicant in the maintenance court against the statements recovered by the Investigating Officer. The Court noted numerous instances where specific entries of withdrawals and deposits—ranging from Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 2,00,000—were missing from the documents submitted by the Applicant.
Addressing the nature of the offence, the Court analyzed Sections 463, 464, and 466 of the IPC. The Court rejected the Applicant’s defense that the documents were merely “excerpts,” noting that the document was headed “DETAILED STATEMENT” and carried the bank’s logo without any endorsement stating it was an excerpt.
Justice Chauhan observed:
“In a litigation before any court of law, it is imperative that the parties make fair disclosure before the court and same is based on principle of maintaining integrity of judicial process. The parties to litigation are expected to come with clean hands before the court of law. Filing a forged document is a direct assault on said principle. It is an attempt to pervert the course of justice by deceiving the court into accepting a false reality as truth.”
Regarding the definition of “fraudulently,” the Court relied on Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, noting that “defraud” involves two elements: deceit and injury. The Court clarified that injury is not limited to economic loss but includes harm to the mind, reputation, or the administration of justice.
“The presentation of detailed statement of ICICI Bank in respect of the account of Applicant before Maintenance Court with missing entries… is prima facie indicative that the potential use for hiding of entries in the bank statement from the court concerned was to support the claim/defence made by the Applicant before the court concerned or to cause damage to the claim for maintenance preferred by Opposite party no. 2,” the Court stated.
Decision
The High Court held that the FIR and the material on record constituted a prima facie case against the Applicant for the issuance of summons. The Court emphasized that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, not sufficient grounds for conviction.
Finding no merit in the plea, the Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Gaurav Mehta Versus State of U.P. and another
- Case Number: Application U/s 482 No. 33209 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan
- Counsel for Applicant: Ishir Sripat, Saurabh Patel
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Anamika Chopra (In Person), O.P. Dwivedi (A.G.A.)
