1 2026:CGHC:1586-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 66 of 2026 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 Riicoi, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Regional Manager Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Late Narad Ram Aged About 35 Years Nagadbari Post Nipani, P.S., Tahsil And Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pankaj Kumar Dehari S/o Late Narad Ram Dehari Nagadbari Post Nipani, P.S. And Tahsil And Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Tanuja Dehari D/o Late Narad Ram Dehari Nagadbari Post Nipani, P.S. And Tahsil And Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tameshwar Lal Dehari S/o Late Mangaturam Dehari Nagadbari Post Nipani, P.S. And Tahsil And Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tarun Barmate S/o Hari Das Barmate Aged About 25 Years Ward No. 3 Mararpara Gunderdehi, P.S. Gunderdehi, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Mordhwaj Soni S/o Mannu Lal Soni Ward No. 10, Sonipara, Gunderdehi, P.S. Gunderdehi, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.12 17:08:24 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.01.2026 1 The matter has been listed as a default case on account of incorrect classification, as pointed out by the Registry. 2 Heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 3 The appellant has filed the instant appeal with the following relief :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the claims tribunal in Claim Case number 148/2023 and the appeal may kindly be allowed by directing for registration of complaint against the Respondents by directing for registration of complaint against the for offence under section 229(1), 233, 236, 246, 336(1) and 61(2)BNS and further inquiry in the larger interest of justice.” 4 Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the conduct of the claimants in the present case squarely falls 3 within the mischief sought to be curbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Safiq Ahmad vs. ICICI Lombard (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1259), wherein the Court took judicial notice of the rampant practice of filing fraudulent motor accident claims by falsely implicating vehicles and drivers in cases initially registered against unknown vehicles. It is submitted that in the present case also, the FIR was initially registered against an unknown vehicle and, subsequently, in connivance with the owner and driver of vehicle bearing No. CG-04-HD-5569, the said vehicle was falsely shown as the offending vehicle to extract illegal compensation from the appellant Insurance Company. 5 Mr. Patankar further submits that immediately upon the appellant bringing these facts to the notice of the learned Claims Tribunal through an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, the claimants sought withdrawal of the claim petition under the garb of approaching the Labour Court, clearly demonstrating their mala fide intention to evade inquiry and prosecution. It is thus contended that the acts of the respondents disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 229(1), 233, 236, 246, 336(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in permitting withdrawal of the claim petition without adjudicating upon the appellant’s application seeking initiation of proceedings for fabrication of false evidence. Mr. Patankar lastly submits that unless strict action is 4 taken in such cases, the very sanctity of motor accident claim proceedings would be eroded and fraudulent litigants would continue to abuse the process of law with impunity. 6 On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in permitting the claimants to withdraw the claim petition and that no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the impugned order. He further submits that the claimants, being dominus litis, were well within their rights to seek withdrawal of the claim petition with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy before the competent forum, and that the appellant cannot insist upon continuation of proceedings once the claimants themselves no longer wish to prosecute the claim. He contends that the application filed by the appellant under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS does not create an indefeasible right in favour of the appellant and that initiation of such proceedings is purely discretionary, dependent upon the subjective satisfaction of the Court. It is further submitted that the present appeal is devoid of merit and has been filed only to delay final adjudication, and therefore does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents 5 annexed with the present appeal. 8 The scope and ambit of powers under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are discretionary in nature and are required to be exercised by the Court upon its own satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings for the alleged offence relating to fabrication of evidence. Mere filing of an application by a party does not create any vested or indefeasible right to compel the Court to order initiation of such proceedings. 9 In the present case, the learned Claims Tribunal has merely permitted the claimants to withdraw the claim petition with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum. Such permission cannot, by itself, be construed as an endorsement of the allegations levelled by the appellant, nor does it amount to foreclosure of any independent remedy available in accordance with law. 10 It is trite that a litigant who chooses not to prosecute his claim cannot ordinarily be compelled to continue with the proceedings. The claimants, being dominus litis, were entitled to seek withdrawal of the claim petition and the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction within the bounds of law while granting such liberty. No perversity, arbitrariness or patent illegality has been demonstrated by the appellant to warrant appellate interference. 6 11 While this Court is conscious of the concern expressed by the appellant regarding the growing menace of fraudulent motor accident claims, the invocation of penal consequences must rest upon cogent material and upon a satisfaction duly recorded by the Court concerned in accordance with law. An appellate forum cannot substitute such satisfaction merely on the basis of allegations, particularly when the Tribunal has not rendered any finding on merits of the claim. 12 This Court finds that the present appeal is premised on a perceived grievance arising out of the withdrawal of the claim petition rather than on any jurisdictional error committed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appellant has failed to establish that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity or warrants interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 13 Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 14 In view of the above, the defects pointed out by the Registry is waived off. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu