Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
BANWARI LAL SHARMA, J.
ALOK MEENA — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 585 of 2017
Decided on : 25-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ashvin Garg, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, Jitendra Shrimali, Adv.
Mere rejection of an insurance claim and change of investigator by an insurance officer, without any mala fide intention or ulterior motive, does not constitute a cognizable offense.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - GROUNDS - SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES - INSURANCE CLAIM REJECTION - JURISDICTION OF INSURANCE OFFICER - CHANGE OF INVESTIGATOR - NO COGNIZABLE OFFENCE MADE OUT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an insurance officer, was accused of rejecting an insurance claim and changing the investigator in a case involving a damaged motorcycle. The complainant alleged that the petitioner conspired with others to reject the claim and appointed a biased investigator who submitted a false report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute a cognizable offense. The court noted that the insurance claim was more than Rs. 20,000, which was outside the petitioner's jurisdiction. The court also found that the change of investigator was not done by the petitioner but by the Deputy Manager of the insurance company.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioner constituted a cognizable offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. for quashing FIRs. The court held that the allegations against the petitioner did not fall within any of the categories of cases where the FIR could be quashed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner.
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
Petitioner accused Alok Meena preferred this misc. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the impugned FIR No. 378/2016 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 167 and 193 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.2016, respondent No. 4 complainant Shri Gopal Krishna Sharma submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur interalia alleging that on 17.04.2016 at 8 a.m. the aforesaid complainant along with one Hitendra Kumar went to Nehru Garden where they parked their motor cycle at parking place and went in the garden. On return their motor cycle was found damaged by some unknown vehicle. They shifted their motor cycle to Morani Motors workshop where workshop's people informed that motorcycle has completely damaged, it cannot be repaired. It was alleged that the complainant had taken package police from M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation for damaged vehicle, therefore, complainant submitted his claim application on 29.04.2016 in the office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur where he met with petitioner Shri Alok Meena, Administrative Officer who checked the claim form of complainant and informed to complainant that valuation of the damaged vehicle would be obtained from Surveyor and as per loss caused, the compensation would be paid and at the time of payment of compensation he would have to show the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and would have to submit one cancelled cheque for depositing the amount directly in bank account. It was assured that all formalities would be completed within 30 days. Rajesh Gupta Surveyor was appointed on 29.04.2016 and on 30.04.2016 he submitted in his report that he assessed the loss in the tune of Rs. 44,703/-. Required cancelled cheque was also handed over to Insurance Company. When the claim amount was not deposited in the account of complainant, then complainant met with petitioner accused Alok Meena and asked for early payment where petitioner accused told him that he was busy in RAS Examination and steps for making payment will be taken after one month. When repeated requests were made for early payment, petitioner Alok Meena became annoyed and started talking in high tone and thereafter petitioner Shri Alok Meena entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused and appointed his yes man Shri Mukesh Pareek as Investigator who was claiming himself as Chief Investigator, General Insurance Claim Cases. After entering into criminal conspiracy with Mukesh Pareek on instructions of petitioner, Mukesh Pareek prepared false report without recording statements of eye-witnesses and without preparing site-plan and on the basis of his false report the claim of claimant was rejected.
3. On the basis of report, police registered impugned FIR No. 378/2016 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 167 and 193 IPC and investigation commenced. Matter is under investigation.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Ashvin Garg submits that as per complaint the incident of motorcycle took place on 17.04.2016 for which report was made to Police Station on 14.05.2016. When the claim form was submitted by respondent No. 4 complainant, the matter was sent for investigation to investigator who submitted report and after considering the report of investigator, the claim was rejected. Since claim was rejected, this false FIR was lodged. He submits that from the bare perusal of FIR, no offence is made out against the present petitioner. Changing of investigator is in domain of Insurance Company. Further, the claim of complainant was more than Rs. 20,000/- while the power of present petitioner was to decided the claims up to Rs. 20,000/- only, therefore, the case of complainant was not in jurisdiction of petitioner. The complainant's claim petition was rejected by Shri S K Meena, Deputy Manager, New I
