Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1255/2026 for the offence committed under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 201, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. (Annexure P/1 Colly) and the entire Criminal Proceedings in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No.152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC. Son of the petitioner Balbir Singh and another person Devendra Sen are also co-accused persons in the case. The FIR was registered on 11-04-2025 on the instance of complainant Jatin Choudhari with the allegation that the present petitioner and her son Balbir Singh are his neighbour. The petitioner Saranjeet Kaur is an LIC agent having Agent Code 00984390. He purchased total 13 LIC policies in his own name and also in the name of his family members. He disclosed in his complaint each of policy numbers, policy holders and yearly premium paying by the complainant to the petitioner. He also disclosed the transfer of amount of LIC premium through NEFT mode from his bank account to the bank account of the son of the petitioner, Balbir Singh. The said transfer of amount is made on the instance of the present petitioner. When he transferred the amount of LIC premium in the bank account of Balbir Singh, they also gave deposit receipts of the said LIC premium. The said policy was purchased by him since 2013. In the year 2024 at the time of filing of Income Tax return, he was in need of the deposit receipts and when he contacted the LIC office Pandari Branch, Raipur along with the receipts given by the petitioner and her son for the year 2022 and 2023 and asked for receipts for the year 2024, the person concerned of the LIC office informed him that the petitioner and her son have not deposited any amount as has been claimed by him and thus, the petitioner and her son have cheated him for Rs.5,75,304/-, from the Nitish Verma they cheated Rs.4,96,000/-, from Jagmohan Singh Nagpal Rs.5,93,649/- and from Bhushan Kumar Jhode Rs.28,88,827/- which comes to total Rs.45,53,780/- and then he lodged the report. Based on this report the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and her son. During the investigation the bank account statement were seized. The relevant LIC policy documents/bond papers have been seized, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, her son Balbir Singh and another co-accused Devendra Sen.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no money transaction in the bank account of the petitioner and whatever transactions have been made by the complainant is in the bank account of her son. The petitioner is a LIC agent and working with utmost sincerity and honesty, however, when she came to know about illegal activities of her son Balbir Singh she herself had made a complaint to police. The petitioner was unaware about any forged receipts issued to the complainant. He would further submit that there is no document in the charge sheet with respect to issuance of any receipt by the petitioner or preparing any forged document. The petitioner was also awarded certificate of good performance for the year 2015 and 2019 and got appraisal from the LIC Department for her good work. The petitioner is old aged lady and suffering from various ailments. The FIR as well as criminal proceedings is ill motivated and only to extort money from her. No prima facie offence as alleged in the FIR as well as the charge sheet is reflected and therefore, the impugned FIR and charge sheet as well as the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that the petitioner being the LIC agent, responsible for transaction made under her agent code. The agency to conduct LIC business was issued to her and she along with her son committed the offence of cheating by taking huge amount of premium from the complainant, but has not deposited it with the concerned LIC Department so that the LIC policy can be honoured. It is not a single instance that after obtaining the amount from the complainant they have not deposited it with LIC Department, but it is a sequence of event since long and huge amount of the complainant have not been deposited with LIC Department and issued forged receipts of deposition of the LIC premium. From the bank account statement it clearly transpires that the amount has been transferred from the bank account of the complainant. He would further submit the petitioner cannot absolved from her liability by simply saying that all the transactions have been made with her son and not with her and therefore she is not liable for any act of her son. There are ample and sufficient material against the petitioner which prima facie implicate her in the offence in question for which charge sheet has been filed and the proceeding of criminal case is pending before the learned trial Court, and thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

6. From perusal of the FIR it transpires that there are allegation against the petitioner that she being a LIC agent, running the business, she has been allotted agency to run LIC business, which shows that she is the key person under whose authorization her son and/or other persons are working. One cannot presume that without her code or signature any amount could be deposited or transferred with LIC Department towards premium of various customers. When she is having agency of LIC it is for her to take care of the account of the customers for whom she is working. It is not only a business of issuing policy, but it is a business of trust. The petitioner is denying that the amount has not been paid by the complainant, but it is said that the amount has been deposited in the bank account of her son Balbir. When the complainant made allegation that the amount has been transferred in the bank account of her son Balbir on the instance of the petitioner it would reflect the plausible association of the petitioner and her son Balbir to misappropriate the amount deposited by the complainant for depositing it to the LIC Department as the premium of his LIC policy.