Filing Forged Document Is Direct Assault On Judicial Integrity, Insult To Majesty Of Law; Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea To Quash Criminal Proceedings Over Allegedly Altered Bank Statement In Maintenance Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings and the summoning order against an accused man, allowing the prosecution to continue. The dispute stemmed from a complaint by the child’s mother that, during maintenance proceedings, the accused filed an ICICI Bank account statement that did not reflect the true and complete entries, allegedly deleting transactions to understate his financial capacity and mislead the court. Finding that the complaint and supporting material disclosed a prima facie case, the Court declined to interfere at the pre-trial stage. It noted that parties are expected to make fair disclosure, and that filing a forged document is a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process and an insult to the majesty of law.
The matter arises from criminal proceedings initiated after bank statements submitted by the applicant in child-maintenance litigation were found to differ from the original ICICI Bank records obtained during investigation. The informant—engaged in maintenance proceedings concerning a minor child—alleged that the applicant filed altered bank statements lacking the ICICI Bank format, stamp and authorized signature, and that several debit and credit entries, including transfers to another account, were deleted to conceal income.
The Investigating Officer retrieved the original statements from the bank, recorded the informant’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and filed a charge sheet under Section 466 IPC. The court thereafter summoned the applicant for the offence.
The applicant contended that the document submitted was only an extract of the account statement, that there was no wrongful gain or loss, and that proceedings under Section 466 IPC could not lie absent dishonest intention. It was further submitted that the summoning order was mechanically issued. The opposite party maintained that the altered document misled the maintenance court and prolonged the proceedings. The State supported the prosecution on the basis of the discrepancy between the statements.
The Court recorded that “it is not denied by Applicant before this Court that disputed statement of account filed by Applicant before the Maintenance Court are at variance with the original statement of account of ICICI Bank of the same period.” It stated that the litigation arose in the context of maintenance proceedings in which the applicant was directed to file bank statements, and “in this background, the disputed document… was preferred/filed by Applicant before court concerned.”
The Court observed that “in a litigation before any court of law, it is imperative that the parties make fair disclosure… based on principle of maintaining integrity of judicial process.” It further stated that “filing a forged document is a direct assault on said principle… an attempt to pervert the course of justice by deceiving the court into accepting a false reality as truth.” The Court recorded that such conduct “gives an unfair advantage and disturbs the level playing field” and is “an insult to the majesty of law.”
The Bench outlined the statutory elements of the charged offences, noting that for Section 466 IPC, the prosecution must show that “the accused forged a document” and that the document formed “a record of proceedings of or in the court of law.” It further stated that the disputed statement was part of the record of maintenance proceedings. Regarding Section 463 IPC, the Court recited that making a false document must be with intent “to cause damage or injury… or to support any claim… or to commit fraud.”
The Court also referenced the jurisprudence on fraud and injury, quoting that “the expression ‘defraud’ involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived… it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others.” It stated that whether injury—including injury to mind or reputation—occurred is “a matter of evidence or inference drawn from proved facts.”
With respect to the stage of trial, the Court recorded that questions regarding the nature of the disputed document and the manner of its presentation “is a question of evidence which can be detailed at the stage of trial.” It further stated that “prima facie the disputed document is false in nature, as it does not reflect the true and complete entries of statement of account of bank.” At the process-issuing stage, the Magistrate need only ascertain whether there exist sufficient grounds to proceed, and the Court cited that “the expression ‘sufficient ground’… means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out… and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.”
Based on the record, the Court observed that the FIR and supporting material “do constitute a prima facie case… for issuance of summons,” and that the summoning order could not be said to lack application of mind given the findings already recorded at final hearing.
The Court stated: “In view of the facts, circumstances and reasons hereinabove mentioned, the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.”
“The First Information report and the material in support of the allegations, do constitute a prima facie case… for issuance of summons.” It also stated that questions regarding the genuineness of the disputed document “can be detailed at the stage of trial.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant: Ishir Sripat, Saurabh Patel, Advocates.
For the Respondents: O.P. Dwivedi, Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh; Anamika Chopra, opposite party no. 2 appearing in person.
Case Title: Gaurav Mehta vs. State of U.P. and Another
Neutral Citation:2025: AHC:220176
Case Number: A482 No. 33209 of 2023
Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan
