1 2025:CGHC:37118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3888 of 2025 Aashita Masih W/o Late Prashant Kumar Masih Aged About 30 Years R/o Phulwari, P.O Takhatpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1-State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home (Police), Department Of Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Bhartiya State Bank Collectrate Branch Munegli Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Sunil Kumar Masih S/o Ganga Masih Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Phulwari Police Station Jarhagaon, Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Sarita Masih W/o Sunil Kumar Maish Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Phulwari Police Station Jarhagaon, Mungeli Dist. Munegli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For State-Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent no. 3 : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.30 17:12:08 +0530 2 For Respondent no. 4 & 5 : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:- a. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. b. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent n. 3 to return back money which is illegally withdrawn by the respondent no. 4. c. Any other relief or relief(s), which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of late Prasant Masih who was working in Chhattisgarh Police Department as a Constable. But on 12.10.2024 he died in a road accident, upon which the petitioner moved an application of under Section 372 of the Indian Succession and obtain the certificate. The petitioner also approached the respondent police authority for deposit of the amount of deceased as well as claimed for insurance and compassionate appointment. She even moved an application before the respondent bank on 18.10.2024 for withdrawal of the money of the deceased. He further submits that respondent no. 3 has been made nominee by the deceased, 3 respondent no. 3 has withdrawn all the money from the bank and is taking undue advantage. 3. He also submits that being aggrieved of the act of respondent no. 3 she filed a complaint before the respondent police authority but no action has been taken by the authority against the respondent no. 3. Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and deserves all the benefits. Moreover the respondent no. 4 have no right to receive money from the bank without the permission fo the petitioner even when he is the nominee. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, draws attention of this Court to the point that Rs. 42 lac has already been withdrawn by the respondent no. 4 who is the brother of the deceased from the respondent bank on account of death of the deceased as he was the registered nominee. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Bare perusal of the record available, it reveals that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Death certificate of the deceased Prashant Masih shows that he died in a road accident on 12.10.2024. Before his death, he was working as a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police. During his service he made his nominee to respondent no. 4 Mr. Sunil Kumar Mashi, his elder brother. Hence, respondent no. 4 withdrew Rs. 42 Lakhs from the Bhartiya State Bank Collectorate Branch Mungeli/respondent no. 4 3. Being aggrieved of this, petitioner moved an application before the respondent-Bank on 18.10.2024 for withdrawal of the money of her late husband as well as approached before the police authority and claimed for insurance and compassionate appointment. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is crystal clear that although petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, but deceased has made respondent no. 4 as his nominee and it is also clear that after the death of deceased respondent no. 4 withdrew all the money from the respondent Bank. The petitioner obtained the succession certificate from First Class Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bilaspur on 08.05.2025 (Annexure P/2). Hence, this Court finds that as of now the dispute is between the petitioner and private respondent no. 4 and 5, this matter is of civil nature and there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter is not maintainable and deserves not to be entertained. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 9. However, petitioner is at liberty to file a civil suit before the competent Court, if she desires. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) alfiza JUDGE