Kanpur A case has come to light in which a man has accused his wife of allegedly misusing the original documents of his property to obtain a loan of ₹28.45 lakh and showing him as a co-borrower without his knowledge or consent. Naved Hasan, a resident of Qazikheda in the Chakeri area, has accused his wife, Shakeela Ali, and officials and employees associated with Piramal Finance of involvement in the alleged irregularities. He claims that he neither applied for the loan nor signed any documents or gave consent for the borrowing. Despite this, he was allegedly listed as a co-borrower, and an amount of ₹28,45,683 was transferred to his wife’s bank account. Acting on a court order, Kotwali police have registered an FIR against 12 people, including his wife, and initiated an investigation.
According to Naved Hasan, his father transferred ownership of the house to him through a registered gift deed in September 2017. The original property documents were related to the ownership of the house. He alleges that these documents were subsequently used to obtain the loan without informing him or seeking his approval. After learning that he had been included as a co-borrower in the loan application, he questioned the circumstances under which his name and details had been used.
Couple Had Been Living Separately Following Marital Dispute
In his complaint, Naved Hasan stated that a dispute arose between him and Shakeela Ali in 2023, following which they began living separately. In June 2025, Shakeela allegedly left the house. He claims that the property documents were subsequently used to secure the loan from the finance company. The complainant has denied having any knowledge of or involvement in the process.
He has sought an investigation into how his consent was allegedly recorded in the loan application and related documents despite his claim that he never agreed to become a co-borrower. He also alleged that instead of using his mobile number and email address for communication, the application contained an alternative mobile number and email address belonging to his wife. According to him, this prevented him from receiving information about the loan application and the formalities associated with it.
₹28.45 Lakh Credited to Wife’s Account, Instalments Also Paid by Her
According to the complaint, ₹28,45,683 was transferred to Shakeela Ali’s bank account as part of the loan. Naved Hasan claims that he had no role in receiving or using the money. He has denied applying for the loan, submitting documents for it or participating in the process through which the funds were disbursed.
The complainant further stated that his wife continued to pay the loan instalments. He has called for scrutiny of the loan approval process, verification of the property documents, the inclusion of his name as a co-borrower and the subsequent release of funds.
An important aspect of the investigation will be to establish how the documents were verified before the loan was approved and what procedures were followed to confirm the consent and identity of the person listed as a co-borrower. The circumstances under which the loan was processed and the funds were transferred will also need to be examined.
Finance Company Personnel From Multiple Departments Named
Apart from Shakeela Ali, her brothers, Mohammad Rizwan and Mohammad Faheem, have also been named as accused in the case. The FIR includes the branch manager of Piramal Finance, authorised officer Utkarsh Srivastava, and employees associated with the company’s credit, sales, know-your-customer (KYC), field operations and loan disbursement departments.
A total of 12 people have been named in the case registered on the court’s directions. The allegations have raised questions about the procedures followed during the loan application, the use of the original property documents, the recording of the alleged co-borrower’s details and the disbursement of the loan amount.
Investigators will examine who submitted the documents, how the information provided in the application was verified and what role the individuals involved in processing the loan allegedly played. The investigation will also need to establish whether the required checks were carried out before the loan was sanctioned and whether the complainant’s consent was obtained in accordance with the applicable procedures.
Kotwali Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi confirmed that an FIR had been registered following a court order. The investigation is expected to establish the circumstances surrounding the loan and the respective roles of those named in the complaint.
The registration of an FIR does not establish the guilt of the accused. The allegations against the wife, her relatives and the finance company’s personnel remain subject to investigation. Their individual responsibility, if any, will depend on the evidence collected and the findings of the investigation.
