The Court said that giving false documents to a court is a serious attack on the judicial process<\/strong>, even if the maintenance case had already been decided in favour of the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Vikram D. Chauhan<\/strong> delivered the judgment on 8 December 2025<\/strong>, holding that the husband must face trial for the offence under Section 466 IPC<\/strong> (forgery of court records). The summoning order earlier issued by the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, was upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband submitted what he described as the ICICI Bank statements for 2011\u20132014, 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<\/strong>, and later the police investigation found that several bank entries were missing<\/strong> from the statement submitted in court. These entries ranged from \u20b918,000 to \u20b92,00,000<\/strong>, including both deposits and withdrawals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife lodged an FIR, and after investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 466 IPC<\/strong>, stating that the husband had submitted a \u201cDETAILED STATEMENT\u201d<\/strong> that was actually altered, with several transactions removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband argued that the document he submitted was not a complete statement but only \u201cexcerpts\u201d<\/strong> 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 \u20b915,000 per month to the child as initially demanded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court noted that he never told the Family Court<\/a><\/strong> at the time of filing that the statement was only an \u201cexcerpt<\/strong>\u201d. The document itself was titled \u201cDETAILED STATEMENT\u201d<\/strong>, giving the impression of completeness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cdishonestly<\/strong>\u201d and \u201cfraudulently<\/strong>\u201d under IPC Sections 24 and 25, referring to the Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation in Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963)<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that injury in \u201cfraud<\/strong>\u201d is not only financial. Harm to reputation, mind, or legal rights also counts as \u201cinjury<\/strong>\u201d. Whether this injury occurred is a matter of evidence that must come out in trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Quoting the Supreme Court in Vimla<\/em> (1963), the Court reproduced:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAny harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property\u201d<\/em> as the legal meaning of \u201cinjury\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court again emphasised:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court found that the husband\u2019s statement removed many entries that could have had \u201cimportant bearing\u201d<\/strong> on the maintenance claim and that presenting it as a \u201cdetailed statement\u201d without explanation created a prima facie case of a false document<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the stage of issuing summons, a Magistrate only needs to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, the High Court refused to interfere, stating that the husband must face trial<\/strong>, and dismissed the Section 482 CrPC application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nBackground of the Case<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Husband\u2019s Defence Before High Court<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
High Court\u2019s Key Observations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Final Decision<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"HC](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Allahabad-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Means (Simple Indian English)<\/strong><\/td> Why It Is Relevant in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 466 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Forgery of court records or documents that appear to be official. Punishment up to 7 years + fine.<\/td> Husband is accused of submitting a forged \u201cDETAILED STATEMENT\u201d bank statement in a maintenance case.<\/td><\/tr> Section 463 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Defines forgery<\/em>: making a false document with intent to cause damage, support a false claim, cheat, or commit fraud.<\/td> Court analysed whether removing bank entries amounts to making a false document.<\/td><\/tr> Section 464 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Defines \u201cfalse document\u201d<\/em>: when someone dishonestly or fraudulently makes or alters a document to make others believe it is genuine.<\/td> Court compared true ICICI statement with altered one to see if entries were deleted knowingly.<\/td><\/tr> Section 24 IPC \u2013 Dishonestly<\/strong><\/td> Doing something with intent to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.<\/td> Court explained that \u201cdishonesty\u201d involves financial benefit or loss.<\/td><\/tr> Section 25 IPC \u2013 Fraudulently<\/strong><\/td> Doing something with intent to defraud (requires deceit + injury), even if no monetary loss happens.<\/td> Court said injury under fraud includes harm to mind, reputation, or legal rights.<\/td><\/tr> Section 44 IPC \u2013 Injury<\/strong><\/td> \u201cAny harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.\u201d<\/td> Court quoted this definition to show injury can be mental\/reputational, not just financial.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance for wife\/child\/parents. Court can order financial support.<\/td> Husband was directed to file true income details in this proceeding.<\/td><\/tr> Section 482 CrPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Inherent powers of High Court to quash cases in rare situations.<\/td> Husband tried to use this to stop the criminal case against him. Court refused.<\/td><\/tr> Section 91 CrPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Allows parties to ask the court to call for documents.<\/td> Wife\u2019s Section 91 application was earlier rejected because the husband allegedly filed a fabricated statement that blocked truth.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC (mentioned in FIR)<\/strong><\/td> 420 \u2013 Cheating, 468 \u2013 Forgery for cheating, 471 \u2013 Using a forged document as genuine.<\/td> FIR included these sections before chargesheet was framed under 466 IPC.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Judgment \u2013 Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963)<\/strong><\/td> Landmark case explaining meaning of \u201cdishonestly\u201d, \u201cfraudulently\u201d, and \u201cinjury\u201d.<\/td> Allahabad HC relied on this case to define fraud and injury.<\/td><\/tr> Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (1996)<\/strong><\/td> Fraud and forgery can be proved through inferences, not only direct evidence.<\/td> HC cited this to state that trial is needed to examine fraud fully.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n