A case involving the alleged illegal occupation of a mortgaged residential property has come to light in Chhattisgarh’s Durg district. Police have registered an FIR against a man accused of breaking official seals placed by a bank and forcibly reoccupying a property that had been taken into possession under recovery proceedings.

The complaint was filed by officials of Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, who alleged that the accused twice broke the bank’s sealed locks and removed notices placed on the property. Authorities claim the actions interfered with the legal recovery process and caused financial losses to the bank.

The dispute is linked to a home loan of ₹26 lakh obtained by Mohammad Kasim Khan and Mohammad Naseem Khan. The borrowers had mortgaged a 1,200-square-foot residential property located in Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, to secure the loan.

According to bank officials, following the death of Mohammad Kasim Khan, loan repayments were allegedly discontinued. As a result, the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), leading the bank to initiate recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

Property Sealed Twice

Officials stated that on March 21, 2025, the property was formally taken into possession and sealed in the presence of administrative officials and police personnel following an order issued by the District Magistrate.

However, the bank alleges that Kasim Khan’s son, Mohammad Wasim Khan, broke the lock on the same day and reoccupied the premises along with his family members.

Following complaints by the bank, authorities again took possession of the property on March 10, 2026, and sealed it under administrative supervision. Despite the second action, officials allege that the accused once again entered the property and resumed occupation.

E-Auction Process Delayed

The bank had initiated an e-auction process for the property on April 27, 2026, as part of loan recovery efforts. However, the auction was temporarily halted after the accused reportedly obtained interim relief from the Bilaspur High Court for a limited period.

Bank authorities stated that legal proceedings related to the property remain ongoing.

Inspection Reveals Irregularities

According to the complaint, a team led by the Regional Manager and NPA Manager visited the property on April 28, 2026. During the inspection, officials allegedly found that the bank’s sealed locks had been removed and replaced with different locks.

They also claimed that physical possession notices painted on the property walls had been erased through repainting and renovation work.

Local residents reportedly informed officials that the accused had re-entered the premises after removing the seals, though these claims remain part of the ongoing investigation.

Mutation Allegations Examined

The complaint further alleges that changes were made in revenue records relating to the mortgaged property. Bank officials have claimed that names were added or altered without obtaining the bank’s consent, despite the property being under mortgage.

Authorities are examining the relevant land and revenue documents as part of the investigation.

In a dramatic escalation of a scandal that began with a cancelled celebrity wedding, music composer Palash Muchhal has filed a ₹10 crore defamation lawsuit against actor-producer Vidnyan Mane. This legal salvo is a direct response to explosive allegations from Mane, who claims Muchhal cheated him of ₹40 lakh in a film deal and was caught in an act of infidelity on his wedding day with cricketer Smriti Mandhana.

The case, now poised for the courts, brings together a combustible mix of financial disputes, sensational personal accusations, and high-profile reputations, ensuring it remains a top story in entertainment and legal circles.

Explosive Allegations: Fraud and a Wedding Day Scandal

The controversy stems from claims made by Vidnyan Mane, who describes himself as a childhood friend of Smriti Mandhana. Mane has filed a complaint with Sangli police, alleging that Muchhal defrauded him of ₹40 lakh related to an unreleased film titled Nazariya.

-   Financial Claims: Mane alleges that in December 2023, Muchhal offered him an investment opportunity, promising a ₹12 lakh profit on a ₹25 lakh investment once the film released on OTT platforms, along with a role in the project. Mane claims he paid a total of ₹40 lakh by March 2025, but the film did not materialize, and his requests for a refund were ignored.

-   Infidelity Allegations: In a separate but linked accusation, Mane told Hindustan Times that he was present at the wedding celebrations on November 23, 2025, when Muchhal was allegedly "caught red-handed with another woman in bed". He claimed the situation turned chaotic, leading to a physical confrontation.

-   Additional Pressure: Mane further alleged that after the wedding was called off, Muchhal's mother pressured him to invest an additional ₹10 lakh, threatening that he would otherwise lose his prior investment.

Muchhal's Forceful Denial and Legal Counterattack

Palash Muchhal has categorically denied all allegations, labeling them as a malicious attempt to tarnish his reputation.

-   Official Statement: On Instagram, Muchhal stated the claims are "entirely baseless and factually incorrect" and asserted that his lawyer, Shreyansh Mithare, is pursuing all legal avenues.

-   The Defamation Suit: The primary legal action is a ₹10 crore defamation notice served to Vidnyan Mane. Muchhal calls the accusations "false, outrageous and highly defamatory".

-   Legal Team's Defense: Advocate Shreyansh Mithare has publicly questioned the credibility of Mane's claims. He pointedly asked for evidence of the alleged financial transactions and the infidelity, noting the accusations only surfaced after Muchhal's wedding was cancelled.

The Silent Aftermath: Social Media and Unanswered Questions

Amid the legal fray, telling actions have unfolded online. Muchhal has deleted several Instagram posts that featured Smriti Mandhana, including affectionate birthday tributes and festive pictures. This digital cleanup, noticed by fans, adds a layer of personal finality to the public dispute.

The core relationship at the heart of the scandal remains private. Smriti Mandhana has not commented on the recent allegations. The wedding was initially postponed in November 2025 due to a family health emergency and was later officially called off in December.

Why This Story Captivates: Celebrity, Scandal, and the Court of Public Opinion

This case transcends a simple financial dispute. It taps into perennial public fascinations with celebrity relationships, trust, and betrayal. The involvement of a national cricket star and a popular music composer has guaranteed intense media scrutiny and social media debate.

Legal experts observe that the lawsuit shifts the battle from the court of public opinion to a court of law, where claims will require verifiable evidence. For now, the public is left with sharply contrasting narratives, a deleted digital history, and a high-stakes legal battle that promises more developments.