JAGVATIversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21191 of 2024

Jagvati
                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Opposite
                                                                  Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :    Ayush Kaushik
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :    G.A.

Court No. - 81
                  HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ayush Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with
prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.244 of 2015 as well
as impugned charge sheet no.802 of 2020 dated 27.12.2020 arising
out of Case Crime No.217 of 2015 as well as impugned summoning
order dated 03.01.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut.

3. In short, the prosecution case is that the complainant was working
as Associate Regional Manager in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance
Company Limited, Meerut. It is alleged that on 20.03.2013, a life
insurance policy bearing No. 17613213 was issued in the name of
Santram son of Bhagwat Singh, resident of Village Kharkhari, Post
Kharkhauda, District Meerut, and an amount of Rs.1,449/- was
deposited towards the first instalment. It is further alleged that in the
said policy, the name of the present applicant Jagwati was mentioned
as nominee/claimant. According to the prosecution, on 06.12.2013
the applicant informed the office of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance
Company Limited that Santram had met with an accident on
10.09.2013 and had died due to the injuries sustained in the said
accident. The applicant thereafter submitted a claim for payment of
the death benefit under the insurance policy. It is alleged that the
insurance company conducted an inquiry into the claim and, during
such inquiry, came to know that the policy-holder Santram had
already died about ten years prior to the issuance of the policy. The
                                                  A482 No. 21191 of 2024
                            2


prosecution further alleges that the applicant, in collusion with the
insurance agent Shivani Goel, obtained the insurance policy on the
basis of forged documents with the intention of obtaining an illegal
insurance benefit.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no direct
material connecting her with the alleged preparation or use of any
forged document. Merely being named as nominee/claimant in the
Insurance Policy does not constitute commission of any criminal
offence, hence, the prosecution proceedings are liable to be
quashed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and
submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material
collected during investigation disclose a prima facie cognizable
offence. It is submitted that the question whether the applicant
knowingly participated in obtaining the insurance policy on the basis
of forged documents and whether she intended to obtain the
insurance amount by fraudulent means, are questions of fact which
cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
placed on record.

7. In the present case, the prosecution allegation is not merely that
the applicant was a nominee under the insurance policy. The specific
allegation is that a policy was issued in the name of Santram on
20.03.2013 and also a claim was subsequently lodged by the
applicant on the assertion that Santram had died in an accident on
10.09.2013 but during the inquiry conducted by the insurance
company, it was allegedly discovered that Santram had already died
approximately ten years prior to the issuance of the policy.

8. Thus, on the face of the prosecution case, there is a material
factual circumstance requiring investigation, namely, the manner in
which an insurance policy came to be issued in the name of a person
who, according to the prosecution, had already died several years
earlier.

9. Further allegation that the applicant acted in collusion with
insurance agent Shivani Goel and forged documents were used for
obtaining the policy and subsequently claiming the insurance amount
                                                      A482 No. 21191 of 2024
                              3


also cannot, at this stage, be discarded merely on the basis of the
submissions made by the applicant. Whether the applicant had
knowledge of the alleged falsity of the documents, whether she
participated in their preparation or use, whether she was acting in
concert with the insurance agent and whether she possessed the
requisite dishonest or fraudulent intention are matters which depend
upon the evidence collected during investigation and upon evidence
led during trial.

10. The applicant's contention that there is no sufficient material to
establish her guilt may constitute a matter for consideration at the
appropriate stage of the criminal proceedings. However, at the stage
of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot
weigh the prosecution evidence as a trial court would do, nor can
disputed questions of fact be conclusively determined.

11. It is also significant that the prosecution case involves
documentary material relating to the insurance policy, the identity and
status of the alleged policy-holder, the documents submitted for
issuance of the policy, the claim submitted after the alleged death
and the inquiry conducted by the insurance company. The evidentiary
value and authenticity of such material are matters which can
appropriately be tested in accordance with law during the criminal
proceedings.

12. The principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335, continue to guide the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. Interference may be justified in cases where the
allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an
offence, or where the allegations and material collected do not
disclose the commission of any offence. However, where the
allegations disclose a prima facie case requiring investigation or trial,
the inherent jurisdiction ought not ordinarily to be invoked to stifle the
prosecution.

13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C.
866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and
lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq
and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those
cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in
                                                                                        A482 No. 21191 of 2024
                                                                 4


                                    an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C..

                                    14. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, while considering a
                                    prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to
                                    examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value and
                                    accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of an
                                    offence. The Court ordinarily should not embark upon an examination
                                    of the correctness or otherwise of disputed facts or undertake a mini-
                                    trial at this stage.

                                    15. The allegations, taken at their face value, therefore cannot be
                                    said to be so inherently improbable or absurd that continuation of the
                                    criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of
                                    law. Instant case does not, on the material presently before this
                                    Court, fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of
                                    inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings.

                                    16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no sufficient
                                    ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                                    in favour of the applicant.

                                    17. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
                                    dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated August 31, 2026
                                    passed by this Court, stands discharged.

                                    18. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer Mahesh
                                    Kumar Sharma is exempted.

                                    September 28, 2026
                                    Ajeet
                                                                                    (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AJEET KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad