Disposed

Sonal Tiwari v. Debashish Banafar

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2019CRMP/117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought direction to register an FIR for forgery of the petitioner's wife's signature regarding a life insurance policy. The Court held that a cognizable offence was disclosed and directed the police to register the FIR in compliance with Lalita Kumari. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned police authority to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

Sonal Tiwari Vs Debashish Banafar — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRMP No. 117 of 2019

¶4

Sonal Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o C-37 Parijati Extension Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Debashish Banafar Earlier Manager At Axis Bank Bilaspur A S C Branch Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer P.S. Tarbahar Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri V.A. Goverdhan, PL for the State

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

15/01/2019

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The present petition is for registration of FIR on the ground that the petitioner's

¶16

wife signature were forged though they have not obtained insurance coverage but it was given on the basis of the forged signature and when the complaint was made out of Rs.1,32,670.378/- certain amount was returned by accepting the fault, however, still some amount is to be repaid.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that primarily the allegations are about the forgery, however, when the report was made to the concerned police,

¶18

¶19

the police officer has not accepted the FIR. She further submits that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is also filed which is pending.

¶20

Perusal of the report dated 04.04.2017 would reveal that the report was made to the police wherein the complaint was made that on the basis of the forged signature life insurance coverage was given though the petitioner has not obtained for the same. When the objection was made certain amount was returned. Perusal of the report dated 04.04.2017 shows that the cognizable offence has been reported. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others {(2014) 2 SCC 1} the concerned police is expected to lodge the FIR and carry out the investigation, therefore, the concerned police authority is directed to register the FIR taking into the nature of the complaint and investigate the same.

¶21

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Goutam Bhaduri Judge

¶24

Ashu

Sonal Tiwari v. Debashish Banafar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonal Tiwari v. Debashish Banafar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Kaur Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vandana Neti Pandey Vs Nitesh Pandey

Rahul Khandekar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aditya Bhardwaj Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chanchala Kumari Gupta Alias (Rehana Parvin) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh