False Bank Records in Maintenance Case: Allahabad HC Refuses to Quash Case Against Man

The Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2025, refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Noida man accused of submitting forged bank statements in a maintenance case filed by his former wife, after finding that the documents he placed before the court omitted numerous transactions that appeared in the authentic statements obtained from ICICI Bank.

The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan noted that the applicant, Gaurav Mehta, had filed “detailed statements” purporting to reflect his financial position, but those statements were materially inconsistent with the bank’s official records.

Court noted that Mehta had been directed by the maintenance court on February 26, 2019, to produce his last three years’ income tax returns, bank statements, and details of movable and immovable assets to assess maintenance for his son. In response, he submitted statements for 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14, along with an affidavit claiming he had no assets, vehicles or investments. This compliance, however, became the basis of a criminal complaint when his former wife alleged that the documents were fabricated to understate his financial capacity.

During investigation, the police obtained the genuine statements from ICICI Bank and compared them with the documents submitted before the maintenance court.

The High Court noted an extensive, entry-wise comparison showing that Mehta’s version deleted a long list of withdrawals and deposits, some amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 or more, which appeared in the official bank records. These omissions, court observed, were not minor discrepancies but repeated, significant financial entries removed from the statements filed in court.

Among the missing transactions were withdrawals of Rs. 1,00,000 on multiple dates, deposits of Rs. 3,63,353 and Rs. 1,88,957, and numerous other entries ranging between Rs. 10,655 and Rs. 60,000. Each of these was present in the authentic ICICI Bank statements but absent in the documents provided by the husband to the maintenance court. Court also noted the absence of the bank’s stamp and authorised signature on the versions submitted by Mehta.

Opposing the criminal case, Mehta argued that even if the statements differed, there was no wrongful gain or loss, because the maintenance proceedings eventually concluded with the court granting the exact amount of Rs. 15,000 per month, which his ex-wife had initially sought. He contended that at most he had submitted “excerpts” of the account, and that a prosecution under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with forgery of court records, was unwarranted.

The former wife, appearing in person, countered that the documents were intentionally fabricated to delay proceedings and avoid disclosing the applicant’s true financial position. She pointed out that the maintenance case had dragged on for nearly a decade, spanning 177 dates, and that the forged statements had directly influenced the court’s assessment of financial disclosures.

Rejecting Mehta's plea under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court held that the discrepancies were prima facie evidence of deliberate suppression of material financial entries and that the authenticity of the documents and intention behind their alteration could only be determined during trial.

Court held that the summoning order was not illegal and that the case did not fall within any category warranting quashing as per the Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal guidelines.

Finding that the allegations reflected an attempt to mislead a judicial forum by submitting altered financial documents, court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Gaurav Mehta vs State of U.P. and another

Judgment Date: December 8, 2025

Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan