LCI Learning
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

498a victim (Owner)     22 February 2017

Which IPC, please help

My wife has taken my bank statement from Hdfc bank and produced in Maintenance case in court. I have given written complaint to police but they have not taken any action. I would be filing case from court so please help me which all IPC I can file on her?


 5 Replies

498a victim (Owner)     23 February 2017

How about IPC 420

498a victim (Owner)     23 February 2017

Because she has forged my signature and bank employee did not follow the correct process to give my statement

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     24 February 2017

are you really concerned that truith has come to the knowledge of court and you wanted to hide the same.

stanley (Freedom)     24 February 2017

@ Author 

Your wife can even summon the bank employer through the court to sumbit your bank statement.


Even Section 464 does not apply over here as below


Central Government Act
Section 464 in The Indian Penal Code
464 Making a false document. — 341 [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First —Who dishonestly or fradulently—
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any 342 [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the 342[electronic signature],
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or 342 [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly —Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudu­lently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with 342 [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly —Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his 342 [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.] Illustrations
(a) A has a letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000 written by Z. A, in order to defraud B, adds a cipher to the 10,000, and makes the sum 1,00,000 intending that it may be believed by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.
(b) A, without Z 's authority, affixes Z 's seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of an estate from Z to A, with the intention of selling the estate to B, and thereby of obtaining from B the purchase-money. A has committed forgery.
(c) A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by B, payable to bearer, but without any sum having been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery.
(d) A leaves with B, his agent, a cheque on a banker, signed by A, without inserting the sum payable and authorizes B to fill up the cheque by inserting a sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees for the purpose of making certain payment. B fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of twenty thousand rupees. B commits forgery.
(e) A draws a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B with­out B 's authority, intending to discount it as a genuine bill with a banker and intending to take up the bill on its maturity. Here, as A draws the bill with intent to deceive the banker by leading him to suppose that he had the security of B, and thereby to discount the bill, A is guilty of forgery.
(f) Z 's will contains the these words—“I direct that all my remaining property be equally divided between A, B and C .” A dishonestly scratches out B 's name, intending that it may be believed that the whole was left to himself and C. A has commit­ted forgery.
(g) A endorses a Government promissory note and makes it payable to Z or his order by writing on the bill the words “Pay to Z or his order” and signing the endorsement. B dishonestly erases the words “Pay to Z or his order”, and thereby converts the special endorsement into a blank endorsement. B commits forgery.
(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A afterwards, in order to defraud Z of his estate, executes a conveyance of the same estate to B, dated six months earlier than the date of the conveyance to Z, intending it to be believed that he had conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to Z. A has committed forgery.
(i) Z dictates his will to A. A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the legatee named by Z, and by represent­ing to Z that he has prepared the will according to his instruc­tions, induces Z to sign the will. A has committed forgery.
(j) A writes a letter and signs it with B 's name without B 's authority, certifying that A is a man of good character and in distressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending by means of such letter to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Here, as A made a false document in order to induce Z to part with property. A has committed forgery.
(k) A without B 's authority writes a letter and signs it in B 's name certifying to A 's character, intending thereby to obtain employment under Z. A has committed forgery in as much as he intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate, and thereby to induce Z to enter into an express or implied contract for serv­ice. Explanation 1. —A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Illustrations
(a) A signs his own name to a bill of exchange, intending that it may be believed that the bill was drawn by another person of the same name. A has committed forgery.
(b) A writes the word “accepted” on a piece of paper and signs it with Z 's name, in order that B may afterwards write on the paper a bill of exchange drawn by B upon Z, and negotiate the bill as though it had been accepted by Z. A is guilty of forgery; and if B, knowing the fact, draws the bill upon the paper pursuant to A 's intention, B is also guilty of forgery.
(c) A picks up a bill of exchange payable to the order of a different person of the same name. A endorses the bill in his own name, intending to cause it to be believed that it was endorsed by the person whose order it was payable; here A has committed forgery.
(d) A purchases an estate sold under execution of a decree against B. B, after the seizure of the estate, in collusion with Z, executes a lease of the estate of Z at a nominal rent and for a long period and dates the lease six months prior to the sei­zure, with intent to defraud A, and to cause it to be believed that the lease was granted before the seizure. B, though he executes the lease in his own name, commits forgery by antedating it.
(e) A, a trader, in anticipation of insolvency, lodges effects with B for A 's benefit, and with intent to defraud his creditors; and in order to give a colour to the transaction, writes a prom­issory note binding himself to pay to B a sum for value received, and antedates the note, intending that it may be believed to have been made before. A was on the point of insolvency. A has commit­ted forgery under the first head of the definition. Explanation 2. —The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. Illustration A draws a bill of exchange upon a fictitious person, and fraudu­lently accepts the bill in the name of such fictitious person with intent to negotiate it. A commits forgery. 343 [ Explanation 3.— For the purposes of this section, the expression “affixing 2 [electronic signature]” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.]

Pawan S (Advocate)     24 February 2017

agreed with autohide.

In addition with the suggestions by autohide -----


Banks are governed by the Information Technology Act 2000 as amended in 2008. The latter amendments contain provisions that enjoin inter alia, banks to adopt reasonable security practices with respect to their databases. Customers of banks can, under the IT Act, obtain compensatory relief for losses arising out of data leakages as well as unauthorized disclosure of information by the banks for gain.


The Information Technology Act 2000 was amended in 2008 to include Section 43A and Section 72A to protect personal data (''PI'') and sensitive personal data and information (''SPDI'').


Sensitive Personal Data or Information (SPDI) — Whereas any information, not freely available relating to a person's password, financial information, health condition, s*xual orientation, medical records and history, biometric information or any detail relating to the above clauses as provided to body corporate for providing service or for processing, stored or processed under lawful contract or otherwise is defined as SPDI.

These Rules apply to bodies corporate or persons located within India and relate to information of natural persons.

Since banks collect SPDI, they need to comply with the Rules, which lay down certain procedures to be followed at the time of collection of data, transfer of data, and disposal of data, and to maintain relevant security practices and procedures. In the event a bank is negligent in implementing and maintaining ''reasonable security practices and procedures'' in relation to SPDI, which causes ''wrongful loss or wrongful gain'' to any person, then the bank is liable to pay compensation to the affected person whose SPDI was compromised.



You can go ahead and sue the bank u/s 43A & 72A of IT Act 2000. But fighting a case against the corporate bodies is a prolonging matter.

I advice you not to involve in the litigation against the corporate bodies and just focus of your current matrimonial case.



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register