JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The appellant no.1, a private sector general insurance company and its functionary, being the appellant no.2 are aggrieved by an order dated 9th March, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 5924(W) of 2017.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that a two wheeler/motorcycle bearing registration number 30H 5378 (a red Bajaj Platina vehicle) was insured with the appellant no.1 vide policy No.3005/67740044/00/B00. The policy was issued on 28th November 2011 and the period of insurance was from 07:37:30 hours on 17.11.2011 to midnight of 16.11.2012. The policy was issued in the name of one Pankaj Kumar Bera. In usual course of business the appellant no.1 received two applications on 28th May, 2012 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Court of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Purba Medinipore at Tamluk which was registered as MACC 46 of 2012 and MACC 115 of 2012. Both the said applications were connected with an alleged accident dated 25th December, 2011. On 5th February, 2012, a complaint was lodged by the wife of one Mrinmoy Halder against one Manik Lal Manna alleging that due to rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle, the same collided with two innocent passers-by, namely Mrinmoy Halder and Pranab Kumar Das when both of whom sustained severe injuries and the said Mrinmoy Halder ultimately succumbed to the injuries sustained. The said complaint was registered as Sutahata Police Station Case No.26 of 2012 under Sections 279/337/338/304A of IPC. Upon completion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted on 26th March, 2012. About five years thereafter the writ petition was preferred on 5th April, 2017 primarily praying for the following reliefs :-

a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify and transmit before this Hon’ble Court the entire records of the said case being First Information Report No.26 of 2012 dated 6th February, 2012, so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the complaint dated 5th February, 2012, First Information Report bearing First Information Report No.26 of 2012 dated 6th February 2012, being annexure “p-3” and the Charge-sheet dated 26th March, 2012 being annexure “P-4” in the instant petition;

b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents and its men, agents and assigns to immediately appoint an independent Investigating authority to investigate into the alleged incident which had allegedly occurred on 25th December, 2011 involving Mrinmoy Haldar, since deceased and Mr. Pranab Kumar Das.

3. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order impugned in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge observed that as neither the insurance company nor any of its officers are accused persons in the concerned criminal case, the insurance company lacks locus standi to challenge the impugned criminal proceeding. It was further observed that it would be open to the accused persons to raise their defences available under the law before the Criminal Court, if so advised.

4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the accident as alleged on 25th December, 2011 is a fabricated one inasmuch as the concerned motorcycle, which was at the relevant point of time covered under the insurance policy, never met with any accident. In the FIR and the charge sheet, the date of the accident was stated to be 25th December, 2011 but in the seizure list dated 5th December, 2011, the date and time of seizure was noted to be ‘05-12-11’. The ‘Discharge Summary’ issued by West Bank Hospital would indicate that the concerned person suffered injuries as he fell down from a motorcycle on 25th December, 2011.

5. He argues that the factum of such accident is only a concocted story presented before the court of law to defraud the appellant company in connivance with the police authorities and the private respondents and the sole