P. K. Musahary, J.-

Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. N. M. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitoiner which was registered as Dimapur East P.S. Case No.263/2010 under Section 120(B)/409/405/465/1 82/500 of IPC.

3. The petitioner is the Manager (Operation) of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company, a Company incorported under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1965 and presently posted at Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., NH Centre Point, Oposite Bora Service, GS. Road, Guwahati.

4. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Licence Agent of source business and authorised to receive premium from the policy holders and issue money receipt thereof for and on behalf of the aforesaid Company. On expiry of the licence, the Company had extended her licence from time to time till 2007.

5. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, broadly submits that the respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner as a counterblast, inasmuch as, the petitioner, before filing of the aforesaid FIR by the respondent No. 2, lodged FIR on 6.7.10 against her which was registered as Dimapur East P.S. Case No. 192 of 2010 under Section 467/468 IPC. The second submission is that the FIR in question filed by the respondent No.2 does not disclose any offence under Section 409/406/405 IPC even if the allegation is taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, inasmuch as, present petitioner at no point of time, was entrusted with the property/money or ever had dominion over the property or the money in the said property has been dishonestly misappropriated or converted by the petitioner to her own use. Similarly, no prima facie case is found to proceed against the petitioner under Section 120(B)/182/500IPC.

6. In support of above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to : (1) 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : State of Haryana & Ors Vs Bhajanlal and Ors., (2) (2009) 1 SCC 516 : R. Kalyani Vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors., (3) (1989) 4 SCC 630: Sham Sunder Vs. State of Haryana, (4) 2010(1) GLT474: Karan Luthra Vs. State of Meghalaya, (5) (2009) 9 SCC 682 : M. N. Ojha & Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr. and (6) (2010) 1 SCC 322: Parminder Kaur Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

7. Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 questions the maintainability of this petition and the authority of the petitioner to file it inasmuch as, there is no authority or authorisation from the Company authorising her to file the petition. He also submits that the petitioner was not authorised to file FIR against the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Dimapur East PS. Case No. 192/2010. Moreover, the petitioner in the said FIR made certain baseless allegations against respondent No. 2.

8. This Court by order dated 18.11.10 directed the learned P.P. to produce both the case diaries in respect of the Dimapur East P.S. Case No. 263/2010 under Section 120(B)/409/405/465/1 82/500 of IPC (registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the petitioner) and Dimapur East P.S; Case

No. 192/2010 (registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the present petitioner against the respondent No. 2).

9. I have carefully perused the case diary as produced by Mr. N.M. Jamir, learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland in connection with Dimapur East P.S. Case No. 192/2010. The investigation in the said case has been completed and the charge sheet bearing No. 0015/11 dated 21.2.11 has been submitted against the respondent No. 2, Smt. Lolano John Ngullie and two others, namely, Mrs. Areni John Ngullie and Mr. Rajib Kumar Das. The relevant portion of the aforesaid charge sheet is reproduced hereunder.-

"During the course of investigation, the complainant was thoroughly examined and basing on her statement and the produced IRDA regulation 2000 and Bajaj Compa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document