The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a husband accused of submitting a forged bank statement during a long-running maintenance case. The Court said filing such a document is an “insult to the majesty of law” and must be tested through trial.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application filed by Gaurav Mehta, who sought to stop criminal Trial against him for allegedly filing a forged ICICI Bank statement during a maintenance case involving his minor son.
The Court said that giving false documents to a court is a serious attack on the judicial process, even if the maintenance case had already been decided in favour of the child.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan delivered the judgment on 8 December 2025, holding that the husband must face trial for the offence under Section 466 IPC (forgery of court records). The summoning order earlier issued by the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, was upheld.
Background of the Case
Gaurav Mehta and his wife married in 2004 and later got a mutual consent divorce in 2007. Their son continued to live with the mother. In 2009, she filed a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC, and in 2019, the Family Court directed the husband to submit complete financial details, which included income tax returns, bank statements, details of movable/immovable assets, and salary slips.
The husband submitted what he described as the ICICI Bank statements for 2011–2014, along with an affidavit stating that he had no vehicle or immovable property. However, the wife suspected the bank statement because it carried no official stamp/signature, and later the police investigation found that several bank entries were missing from the statement submitted in court. These entries ranged from ₹18,000 to ₹2,00,000, including both deposits and withdrawals.
The wife lodged an FIR, and after investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 466 IPC, stating that the husband had submitted a “DETAILED STATEMENT” that was actually altered, with several transactions removed.
Husband’s Defence Before High Court
The husband argued that the document he submitted was not a complete statement but only “excerpts” of the account, and therefore missing entries could not amount to forgery. He also claimed there was no financial loss to anyone since the court still granted maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the child as initially demanded.
However, the Court noted that he never told the Family Court at the time of filing that the statement was only an “excerpt”. The document itself was titled “DETAILED STATEMENT”, giving the impression of completeness.
High Court’s Key Observations
The Court held that filing a false or incomplete document with the intent to mislead can still amount to fraudulent conduct. It explained the meaning of forgery and the difference between actions done “dishonestly” and “fraudulently” under IPC Sections 24 and 25, referring to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963).
The Court noted that injury in “fraud” is not only financial. Harm to reputation, mind, or legal rights also counts as “injury”. Whether this injury occurred is a matter of evidence that must come out in trial.
The judgment stated:
“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. Filing of forged document before court of law gives an unfair advantage and disturbs the level playing field which the courts are bound to maintain. Any attempt to prefer forged document before any court, is to be construed as an insult to the majesty of law”.
Quoting the Supreme Court in Vimla (1963), the Court reproduced:
“Any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property” as the legal meaning of “injury”.
The Court again emphasised:
“Such an issue can only be ascertained when the evidence is led and the trial is undertaken. Even otherwise whether an individual has suffered any pecuniary loss is also to be examined and proved at the trial”.
The Court found that the husband’s statement removed many entries that could have had “important bearing” on the maintenance claim and that presenting it as a “detailed statement” without explanation created a prima facie case of a false document.
Final Decision
At the stage of issuing summons, a Magistrate only needs to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, not whether the accused will eventually be convicted. The Court noted that the FIR, police investigation, and material on record clearly supported issuance of summons.
Therefore, the High Court refused to interfere, stating that the husband must face trial, and dismissed the Section 482 CrPC application.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned
| Law / Section | What It Means (Simple Indian English) | Why It Is Relevant in This Case |
| Section 466 IPC | Forgery of court records or documents that appear to be official. Punishment up to 7 years + fine. | Husband is accused of submitting a forged “DETAILED STATEMENT” bank statement in a maintenance case. |
| Section 463 IPC | Defines forgery: making a false document with intent to cause damage, support a false claim, cheat, or commit fraud. | Court analysed whether removing bank entries amounts to making a false document. |
| Section 464 IPC | Defines “false document”: when someone dishonestly or fraudulently makes or alters a document to make others believe it is genuine. | Court compared true ICICI statement with altered one to see if entries were deleted knowingly. |
| Section 24 IPC – Dishonestly | Doing something with intent to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. | Court explained that “dishonesty” involves financial benefit or loss. |
| Section 25 IPC – Fraudulently | Doing something with intent to defraud (requires deceit + injury), even if no monetary loss happens. | Court said injury under fraud includes harm to mind, reputation, or legal rights. |
| Section 44 IPC – Injury | “Any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.” | Court quoted this definition to show injury can be mental/reputational, not just financial. |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance for wife/child/parents. Court can order financial support. | Husband was directed to file true income details in this proceeding. |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent powers of High Court to quash cases in rare situations. | Husband tried to use this to stop the criminal case against him. Court refused. |
| Section 91 CrPC | Allows parties to ask the court to call for documents. | Wife’s Section 91 application was earlier rejected because the husband allegedly filed a fabricated statement that blocked truth. |
| Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC (mentioned in FIR) | 420 – Cheating, 468 – Forgery for cheating, 471 – Using a forged document as genuine. | FIR included these sections before chargesheet was framed under 466 IPC. |
| Supreme Court Judgment – Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963) | Landmark case explaining meaning of “dishonestly”, “fraudulently”, and “injury”. | Allahabad HC relied on this case to define fraud and injury. |
| Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (1996) | Fraud and forgery can be proved through inferences, not only direct evidence. | HC cited this to state that trial is needed to examine fraud fully. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Gaurav Mehta vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application U/s 482 No. 33209 of 2023)
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Court No. 76
- Bench (Hon’ble Judge): HON’BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
- Important Dates
- Reserved on: 16.09.2025
- Delivered on: 08.12.2025
- Summoning Order Challenged: 17.10.2019
- Chargesheet Filed: 23.09.2019
- FIR Registered: 22.07.2019
- Counsel for Applicant (Husband)
- Sri Ishir Sripat
- Sri Saurabh Patel
- Counsel / Appearance for Opposite Party No. 2 (Wife)
- Ms. Anamika Chopra (appearing in person)
- Counsel for State
- Sri O. P. Dwivedi, A.G.A.
- Case Crime Details
- Police Station: Surajpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar
- Sections in FIR: 420, 468, 471 IPC
- Chargesheet Section: 466 IPC
Key Takeaways
- Even after a decade-long maintenance fight, the system is quick to criminalise the husband for alleged document defects, showing how easily men are pushed into criminal trials.
- The Court accepted that the maintenance was already granted in full, yet still held the husband must face prosecution, proving that outcomes often don’t protect men from parallel harassment.
- Minor discrepancies or missing entries in financial papers can immediately be treated as “forgery”, but similar scrutiny is rarely applied when wives conceal income or assets.
- The case highlights how husbands are forced to defend themselves on multiple fronts—maintenance, police cases, and criminal prosecution—while the burden of proving honesty lies entirely on them.
- The judgment reinforces why men’s financial disclosures are weaponised in litigation and why India urgently needs gender-neutral, balanced procedures for maintenance and matrimonial disputes.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.