HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21191 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ayush Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jagvati .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 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 A482 No. 21191 of 2024 4 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad