Allahabad High Court upholds case alleging man forged bank statements in child maintenance case

The Allahabad High Court recently declined to interfere with a trial court’s decision to summon a man who had allegedly filed forged bank statements in a child maintenance case initiated by his former wife.

Justice Vikram D Chauhan found that the nature of entries, which had been found missing in the disputed document, would have had an important bearing on the maintenance claim made by the former wife.

The accused ought to have disclosed that the document reflected only some of the entries of the original statement, the bench said.

“The disputed document did not reflect all the entries of statement of account of bank and some of entries were not placed before Maintenance Court, however, disputed document was presented as detailed statement of ICICI Bank and in the disputed document there was no narration to the effect that the disputed document contains excerpts of original statement of account of bank as such prima facie the document was a false document made by the Applicant,” the Court ruled.

It, thus, declined to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the accused before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gurgaon.

In the verdict dated December 8, Justice Chauhan also emphasised that litigants must make fair disclosure to courts to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. 

“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,” the Court said.

In the case before the Court, the couple had married in 2004 and have a son. They separated in 2006 and their marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree a year later. The wife then moved a court under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for payment of ₹15,000 maintenance to her son.

In 2019, a trial court directed the husband to submit last three years income tax return, bank account details, fixed deposit or bond and other movable assets and salary slip. In compliance with the direction, the husband filed bank statements and other documents. Considering the same, the Court ordered him to pay ₹15,000 maintenance to the child till he attains majority.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the wife lodged a criminal case against the husband for forging the bank statements. Following an investigation, the police charge-sheeted the husband. A court in Noida then summoned him under Section 466 (forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the petition challenging the summoning order, the husband argued that documents filed by him before the trial court were only the excerpts of the account statement. It was also contended that there was no wrongful gain or wrongful loss to anyone as Section 125 proceedings were ruled in favour of the son.

However, the High Court said the trial court was not told that only excerpts of salary account were submitted.

“The heading of disputed document (statement of account of ICICI Bank before Maintenance Court) states it to be a “DETAILED STATEMENT” along with logo of ICICI Bank. The aforesaid disputed document no where makes any endorsement that the aforesaid disputed document is an excerpt,” it found.

In this backdrop, the Court opined that the question of the nature of disputed document and the manner in which it was presented before the court concerned was a question of evidence which can be examined at the stage of trial. 

“The First Information report and the material in support of the allegations, do constitute a prima facie case against the Applicant for issuance of summons in view of the facts, circumstances and reasons stated herein above,” it held, while dismissing the petition.

Advocate Ishir Sripat appeared for the accused.

Advocate Anamika Chopra represented the complainant.

Advocate OP Dwivedi for the State.