2026:JHHC:26230 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6704 of 2026 ----- Sushila Devi wife of Late Ambika Prasad Sah, resident of Babhangama, PO & PS Tinpahar, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. 3. The Managing Director of Life Insurance Company (LIC), having Office at Yogakshema Building, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai, PO & PS Mumbai, District Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400021. 4. The Regional Zonal Managing Director having Office at Jeevan Deep Building, Exhibition Road, Patna, PO PS Patna, District Patna (Bihar 800001. 5. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Sahibganj, having Office at J.N. Rai Road, PO Sahibganj, PS Sahibganj (Town), District Sahibganj. 6. Renu Devi wife of Rajnath Yadav, resident of Friends Colony, Pandra Road, PO Kamre, PS Pandra, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramchandra Sahu, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP I Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---- 02/31.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents for recovery of the policy amount which was deposited vide Policy No.597659206, Plan Name- LIC’s New Jeevan Anand dated 28-05-2017, which was open in the name of Late Sandeep Kumar Sah who died on 21-11-2024, wherein his mother namely Sushila Devi (petitioner) was nominee in the said policy, but the payment has been disbursed in favour of the private respondent No.6 namely Renu Devi W/o Rajnath Yadav without deciding objection raised by petitioner/nominee of the policy holder and further been pleased 2026:JHHC:26230 -: 2 :- directing the respondent to prosecute/ take legal action against the erring officer involved in this alleged crime. 3. Considering the nature of reliefs and issues involved in this writ petition, it is not necessary to call for the respondents to file counter affidavit in this case. 4. Son of the petitioner had purchased Policy No.597659206 on 28.05.2017 (Plan Name – New Jeevan Anand) having yearly premium of Rs.18,453/-, wherein petitioner was recorded as nominee, which is also shown in the policy bond. The policy holder, son of the petitioner, died on 21.11.2024. The private respondent No.6 demanded death certificate of the policy holder, late Sandeep Kumar Sah, to which the petitioner alongwith some villagers objected before the Registrar (Birth/Death) cum Panchayat Secretary, Tetulia on 02.05.2025 regarding forgery of death certificate of the Policy Holder. The petitioner also served pleader Notices dated 25.11.2025, 28.03.2025 and 13.03.2026 to the Branch Manager, LIC, Sahibganj not to release the insurance amount to the private respondent No.6. The petitioner had also lodged a First Information Report being Tinpahar Police Station Case No.04 of 2019 dated 06.02.2019 for offences under Sections 364, 368, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code as against the private respondent No.6 and her husband, Rajnath Yadav. In the said case final form was submitted by the Police, against which the petitioner had filed a protest petition being Case No.112/2025. The petitioner had also filed Information Petition No.49 of 2022 on 05.07.2022 before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj alleging therein that the private respondent No.6 is a married lady having two children and she with her husband Rajnath Yadav always threatens the petitioner to implicate in a false case with an intent to grab the property of the petitioner. The Branch Manager, LIC, Sahibganj on 11.03.2026 released the insurance amount with respect to Policy No.597659206 in favour of the respondent No.6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Branch Manager, LIC, Sahibganj, without following the rules and regulations and without deciding the objection as also without obtaining the succession certificate, released the insurance amount in favour of the private respondent No.6 in an illegal manner. 2026:JHHC:26230 -: 3 :- 6. Considering the submissions of the respective parties and going through the records, I find that the main grievance of the petitioner revolves around the claim against Policy No.597659206 on 28.05.2017 (Plan Name – New Jeevan Anand) upon death of her son (policy holder). It is also apparent from the records that the claim has already been settled. The petitioner, through this writ petition, is praying for recovery of the said claim amount. The prayer/relief sought for by the petitioner being purely a money claim, cannot be entertained by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 31st August, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 03.09.2026