Chandrachur Singh Files FIR Against Relatives Over Alleged Forgery of Grandfather’s Will

Actor Chandrachur Singh has approached the police in Aligarh over a decades-old inheritance dispute, accusing members of his extended family and several others of using an allegedly forged will to deprive his branch of the family of ancestral property.

An FIR has been registered at Rorawar police station, according to multiple reports carrying information attributed to the police and Singh’s complaint. The case names his aunt Gayatri Devi, two cousins, and four other individuals.

The existence of the police case is supported by multiple news reports. The accusations contained in it, however, have not been proven. The registration of an FIR begins a criminal investigation; it does not establish that the will was forged or that any person named in the complaint is guilty.

What Chandrachur Singh has alleged

The dispute centers on a will attributed to Singh’s grandfather, Thakur Harendra Pal Singh, a landowner associated with Jalalpur in Aligarh.

In his complaint, the actor has alleged that his grandfather was critically ill in 1997 and was not in a condition to sign the document. He claims that the signature appearing on the will was forged and that the document was subsequently used to control or transfer family property.

Singh has further alleged that his late father, Captain Baldev Singh, was away from Aligarh when the will was prepared and was unfairly excluded from the inheritance. Captain Baldev Singh was a former legislator.

These details represent the complainant’s version of events. No publicly available forensic finding or court judgment establishing that the signature was fabricated was identified during this review.

Some coverage says Chandrachur Singh and his brother Abhimanyu Singh recently visited the Jalalpur police outpost to record their statements. Police are reported to be examining the complaint and the supporting material submitted by the actor.

Accused family member previously rejected the allegation

Gayatri Devi has previously denied the forgery allegation, according to published coverage of the family dispute. She maintained that the will was genuine and accused Chandrachur Singh of attempting to implicate the family falsely.

Her denial is important because the dispute has two directly conflicting accounts: Singh says the document was fabricated while the accused side has defended its authenticity. That question cannot responsibly be settled through either side’s public statements.

Investigators would ordinarily need to examine the original document, its execution and custody, available witnesses, relevant property records, and any reliable samples of the deceased’s signature. Whether such evidence is presently available has not been disclosed in the material reviewed.

Reports differ over the FIR’s precise timeline

There is a notable discrepancy in the publicly available reporting. PTI-based reports published over the weekend said Singh filed the complaint on Friday, August 28, 2026. Separate local coverage indicated that the FIR may have been registered approximately two weeks earlier and that the more recent development was Singh recording his statement with police.

The difference does not undermine the central, consistently reported fact that a case has been registered and is under investigation. It does mean that the precise registration date should be checked against the FIR or an official police statement before publication.

An authenticated copy of the FIR showing its number, registration date, and invoked legal provisions was not publicly accessible through the sources reviewed for this article.

Why this is more than a celebrity-family disagreement

At the heart of the case is the legal validity of a document said to have shaped the distribution of family assets after Singh’s grandfather’s death. The dispute reportedly stretches back to events in 1997, making the preservation and verification of original records particularly significant.

The actor’s public profile has brought wider attention to the case, but his film career has no bearing on the merits of the allegations. The investigation must turn on documentary and testimonial evidence rather than the identities of the people involved.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The most important part of this development is not the celebrity name attached to it, but the move from a long-running private dispute into a formally reported criminal investigation.

Coverage should therefore resist treating the filing of an FIR as proof that forgery occurred. The meaningful next developments will be verifiable procedural ones: whether police obtain the original will, whether its signature is examined, whether the named individuals provide statements, and whether investigators file a closure report or proceed with charges.

Until then, “alleged forgery” is the only accurate description.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared from multiple PTI-based accounts, local Aligarh reporting, and published coverage documenting the accused family member’s earlier denial. The central fact that an FIR has been registered at Rorawar police station was consistent across the sources reviewed. The allegations concerning the will and inheritance remain unproven.

A publicly authenticated FIR copy, forensic report, or court finding on the disputed signature was not available for independent review. Conflicting accounts of the FIR’s registration date have therefore been disclosed rather than resolved without primary documentation.