JUDGMENT : The present case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to pay Rs.2,40,000/- with interest to the petitioner as he has been forced to pay the said amount to the respondent no. 5-Sangita Lakra - a policy holder of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), after death of his wife Usha Kiran on 16.08.2014 who happened to be a LIC agent associated with the office of LIC, Hinoo Branch, Ranchi under Jamshedpur Division. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Usha Kiran- the petitioner’s wife was a LIC agent of Hinoo Branch, Ranchi under Jamshedpur Division. The respondent no. 5 had got a LIC policy having sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- through the petitioner’s wife. The date of commencement of the policy was 28.02.2012. The petitioner’s wife died on 16.08.2014. Subsequently, a lady fraudulently impersonating herself as Sangita Lakra surrendered the said policy before the concerned branch of LIC which was accepted by the respondent no. 4 and accordingly surrender value i.e. a sum of Rs.2,03,272/- was paid on 15.03.2017 in the name of Sangita Lakra having bank account no. 0520040100003884 maintained in J&K Bank, Dr. Fatahullah Road, Ranchi. Thereafter, original Sangita Lakra (the respondent no. 5) approached the petitioner and disclosed the fact that she never surrendered any policy before the respondent no. 4. Due to threatening given by original Sangita Lakra (the respondent no. 5), the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs.2,40,000/- in five installments by way of depositing the same in the bank account of the respondent no. 5 maintained in Bank of Baroda, Hesag Branch, Ranchi. It is thus submitted that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 may be directed to pay Rs.2,40,000/- along with suitable interest and compensation to the petitioner who was compelled to pay the respondent no. 5 for no fault on his part or his deceased wife. In fact, there has been conspiracy and connivance of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in accepting the surrender of policy by a lady who impersonated herself as Sangita Lakra due to which the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the original Sangita Lakra (the respondent no. 5). 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in accepting the surrender of policy by a lady who impersonated herself as Sangita Lakra due to which the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the original Sangita Lakra (the respondent no. 5). 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, submits that the petitioner cannot plead innocence as it would be evident from the show cause notice dated 16.11.2020 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, Jamshedpur Divisional Office, LIC of India that the petitioner himself had issued a cheque bearing no. 000022 for an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- in favour of Sangita Lakra which was enclosed with the complaint lodged by her vide letter dated 16.05.2017. The said aspect was taken note of while issuing show cause notice by the Manager (Sales), Jamshedpur Divisional Office, LIC of India vide letter dated 02.01.2021 to the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may. This Court cannot entertain the present writ petition of this nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India keeping in view that there has been allegation and counter allegation between the parties regarding their respective involvement in illegal transfer of policy amount to certain lady who impersonated herself as a policy holder and surrendered it. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse on the present issue as provided under law. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid liberty.