Court Deadline Passes Without FIR in Alleged ₹10 Lakh Fake-Constable Loan Case

VARANASI: A 15-day period set by a local court for registration of an FIR and submission of a report has reportedly expired in a complaint involving a ₹10 lakh bank loan allegedly obtained with false police credentials. The case concerns an application made at Bank of Baroda’s Nichibagh branch and is now drawing attention because the court’s August 14 direction had a specific timeline.

According to the bank’s complaint, a Deoria resident identified as Triguna applied for a personal loan on December 27, 2023, presenting documents and an employee code that described the applicant as a police constable. The bank alleges that subsequent verification found no record of such an appointment in the police department.

The loan was sanctioned, some instalments were paid and the account later stopped performing, according to the reported case history. It was classified as a non-performing asset on July 3, 2024. The allegation is therefore not simply that repayment failed; it is that the lender’s original decision may have been induced by documents and an employment claim the bank considers false.

Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Krishna Kumar reportedly accepted the application on August 14 and directed Chowk police station to register a case and submit a report within 15 days. By the end of that period, the complainant’s lawyer said no FIR had been registered. The station officer quoted in the report said he had no information about the matter.

These are allegations recorded through a complainant and court proceeding. The person named has not been found guilty, and the authenticity, use and effect of each document must be tested through investigation and, if charges follow, before the court. It is equally important to distinguish a court direction to register and examine allegations from a judicial conclusion that fraud occurred.

The delay question is separate. When an order sets a deadline, there should be a traceable record of when it reached the police station, which officer received it and what action followed. If the order was not communicated, that needs correction; if it was received but not acted upon, the reason should be placed before the court.

For banks, the case is a reminder that salary codes, identity documents and employer certificates require independent confirmation before unsecured lending. For the justice system, it is about follow-through. A direction on paper protects no one unless its movement—from court registry to police desk to investigation—is visible and accountable.

The bank may also pursue recovery through the remedies available to it, but debt collection and investigation of alleged false documents are distinct tracks. Keeping them separate protects accuracy. A missed repayment does not prove impersonation, while proof of forged employment material would raise issues beyond an ordinary loan default. The evidence must answer each question on its own terms.