Back
2024 Supreme(J&K) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State through SHO Police Station and ors. - Respondents
OWP No. 676 of 2015
Decided On : 24-05-2024
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.N.Raina Sr. Advocate with Ms. Deeksha Handoo, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG, Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina Advocate
Jurisdiction to entertain a complaint is limited to local limits where the offence occurred. Registration of FIR based on civil disputes constitutes an abuse of process and should be quashed.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Jurisdiction of CJM - The court iterates that a Magistrate can order investigation only if the cognizable offence occurred within the local jurisdiction. No part of the alleged offence occurred within the said limits. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Civil vs. Criminal Nature of Proceedings - The Supreme Court emphasizes that contractual disputes should not lead to criminal prosecution unless a clear criminal element is present. The registration of FIR and the subsequent investigation were an abuse of process. (Paras 19-21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the FIR regarding the alleged non-payment of an insurance claim leading to a death abroad. The complainant alleged forgery and conspiracy by the petitioner to deny the claim.
Findings of Court:
The court found no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the FIR was quashed as it stemmed from a civil matter.
Issues: Whether the CJM had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and if the allegations constituted a criminal offence or were purely civil.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that no part of the crime occurred within the jurisdiction and emphasized that civil transactions should not be conflated with criminal prosecution.
Result: The impugned FIR and proceedings were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insured's death led to insurance claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to fir based on jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. criminalization of civil disputes discouraged. (Para 8 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. contractual nature of insurance disputes. (Para 14 , 19) |
| 5. fir quashed as misuse of legal process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged FIR No.79/2013 for offences under Sections 304 (II)/420/409/467/468 RPC registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
2. The impugned FIR came to be lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.3 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (‘hereinafter to be referred to as ‘CJM’) in which it was alleged that her son Sh. Inder Pal Singh had booked himself from Delhi to Frankfurt for 25.02.2013 and for onward journey from Frankfurt to Burn on 27.02.2013, but he died in Switzerland on 04.03.2013. It was alleged in the complaint that before leaving the country, Sh. Inder Pal Singh along with respondent No.3/complainant and her younger son Gagandeep Singh got themselves insured with the petitioner-company on 20.02.2013 and paid the necessary premium. An amount of Rs.1590 was paid as premium by Sh. Inder Pal Singh to the petitioner-company and he was insured for medical expenses, evacuation and repatriation of remains as also for personal liability/personal accident etc.
3. It has been alleged that the condition of Inder Pal Singh deteriorated while he was in Switzerland and his brother Gagandeep Singh contacted the petitioner-company and informed it about the serious condition of Inder Pal Singh. This was done on 02.03.2013 and the petitioner-company was asked to make the arrangement of Rs.15000 Franks for deposition with Swiss airport in connection with evacuation of Inder Pal Singh from Switzerland to New Delhi. However, the petitioner-company did not process the case and no action was taken by it in the matter. On 02.03.2013 claim form was dispatched by Gagandeep Singh to the petitioner-company through e-mail, but still then, no action was taken by the petitioner-company within the time, as a result of which, Inder Pal Singh died on 04.03.2013. After his death, the petitioner-company was again contacted by respondent No.3/ complainant and her younger son for release of insurance amount so that mortal remains of Inder Pal Singh could be brought to India, but no action was taken by the petitioner-company and instead it informed respondent No.3/ complainant that Inder Pal Singh had cancelled his insurance on 20.02.2013 itself. It is alleged that there was no occasion for Inder Pal Singh to cancel his insurance on 20.02.2013 as on the said date, he was admitted in a Hospital at Jammu. According to respondent No.3/complainant, the petitioner-company has forged the signatures of Inder Pal Singh on the letter seeking withdrawal of insurance. It has been alleged that the petitioner-company has conspired to deny the benefits to Inder Pal Singh and it has forged the documents so as to wriggle out of its liability and this has led to untimely death of Inder Pal Singh. Thus, according to respondent No.3/complainant, the petitioner-company has committed offences under Sections 304 (II)/420/409/467/468 RPC.
4. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded by the CJM to SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu with a direction to investigate the matter as, according to CJM, the complaint disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. The police, on the basis of the directions passed by the CJM, registered the impugned FIR and started investigation of the case.
5. The petitioner-company, while challenging the impugned FIR, has averred that respondent No.2 who is also impleaded as an accused in the impugned FIR is an authorised agent of the petitioner- company. It has been pleaded that on 19.02.2013, respondent No.3/complainant and her son Gagandeep Singh hired the services of M/S Visae Ins. Travel Services (hereinafter referred to as ‘the travel agent) for their i
