'Insult To Majesty Of Law' : Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Husband Accused Of Filing 'Forged' Bank Statements In Maintenance Case

The Court observed that filing a forged document is a 'direct assault' on the principle of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and constitutes an "insult to the majesty of law".

A bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan thus dismissed the application filed under Section 482 CrPC by one Gaurav Mehta, who had challenged the summoning order issued by the Second ACJM, Gautam Buddh Nagar, for the offence punishable under Section 466 IPC [Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.].

The case in brief

Briefly put, a divorce decree was passed in 2007 in a marital dispute between the applicant and the opposite party (the former wife). Later, the wife filed a plea under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for their minor son.

During the proceedings of the maintenance case, the Family Court, by an order passed in February 2019, explicitly directed the applicant-husband to produce his financial records.

He was specifically directed to file last three years income tax return, bank account details, fixed deposit or bond and other movable assets and salary slip.

In purported compliance, the Husband filed a 'DETAILED STATEMENT' of his ICICI Bank account for the years 2011-2014 along with affidavit stating that he owns no vehicle or any other immovable assets.

However, the wife, suspected foul play due to the lack of official stamps and signatures on the bank statement and she lodged an FIR alleging that the document was fabricated to mislead the court regarding his actual income.

During the course of enquiry, the police obtained original bank statement and then it came to light that various entries were deleted from bank statement that was submitted in Maintenance Court allegedly in order to conceal his correct income and mislead the court.

The IO thus submitted the charge-sheet against him in September 2019 under Section 466 of IPC and thereafter the court concerned summoned him for the said offence.

Challenging the criminal proceedings, the applicant-husband moved the HC.

Arguments

It was contended by the applicant-husband that the document submitted was merely excerpts of the account and not a full statement and since eventually, the case was decided in Favor of the son with an award of Rs. 15,000 per month, no 'wrongful loss' was caused to make out an offence under Section 463 and 464 IPC.

High Court's observations

Justice Chauhan, however, rejected the defence that the document was merely an excerpt. The Court pointed out that the document bore the heading "DETAILED STATEMENT".

Significantly, the Court observed that the applicant had not taken the stand that the document was an 'excerpt' before the Maintenance Court at the time of filing, but had raised this plea only later.

Perusing Section 463 IPC, which defines the offence of forgery, the Court noted that 'forgery' is committed when a person makes any false document or part of document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with the property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed

To further understand the expression of “making of false document or part of document”, the HC referred to Section 464 IPC which provides that a person is said to make a false document (in context of present controversy) who 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' makes a document or part of document with intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority such person knows that it was not made.

The Court further pointed out the difference between doing an act 'dishonestly' (Section 24 IPC) and 'fraudulently' (Section 25 IPC). It clarified that while 'dishonestly' requires pecuniary or economic gain or loss, 'fraudulently' involves an intent to defraud, which comprises two elements: deceit and injury.

Quoting from the Supreme Court decision in Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration 1963, the Bench observed that injury is not limited to economic loss but also includes "any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property".

The Court added that once any act is done fraudulently, the injury may also arise in the mind or reputation of an individual, therefore, the question of nature of injury is a matter of evidence or inference drawn from proved facts.

"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 noted.

The High Court also noted that dozens of significant credit and debit entries, ranging from Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, were simply deleted from the statement filed before the Court.

The Court observed that the selective hiding of entries, specifically withdrawals and deposits, was prima facie indicative of a potential intent to hide the true financial status from the court to support his defence in the maintenance case.

This was coupled with the manner in which the statement was projected as a complete 'detailed statement' which led the Court to treat it as a prima facie false document made by the applicant himself

The Bench noted that these missing entries would have had an 'important bearing' on the maintenance claim.

Delivering a stern message to litigants, Justice Chauhan wrote:

"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".

The Court thus concluded that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, not to determine the likelihood of conviction.

Given the material on record showing the variance between the filed document and the actual bank records, the High Court found no error in the summoning order dated October 10, 2019.

The application was thus dismissed.

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ishir Sripat, Saurabh Patel

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., In Person ,Anamika Chopra