The main legal point established in the judgment is that the criminal prosecution must not be an abuse of the process of law, and the court has the power to quash proceedings that do not disclose any offence or are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. The respondent State has gone unrepresented.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-1 Case No. 2722/2014 instituted for the alleged offence under section 409/167/120B IPC including the order taking cognizance dated 24.11.2014 whereby cognizance under section 406 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioner and the matter is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint was filed alleging therein that, the complainant is the owner of Tata Motor Truck bearing Registration No. JH- 05W-4675 for which he had obtained Insurance Policy from National Insurance Company and the said truck met with an accident on 27.01.2013 and he informed the Regional Office of Insurance Company about the same on 15.02.2013 who in turn appointed a Surveyor for assessing the loss and the mechanic assessed the total estimate of repair at Rs. 2,76,790/- in presence of the said Surveyor. It is further alleged that the said Surveyor demanded 20% bribe for submitting genuine report in order to settle the claim amount otherwise he warned that he would submit undervalued report but the complainant did not oblige him and complained to the petitioner who also asked him to comply with demand of Surveyor but the complainant did not accept the said suggestion and submitted original bills and receipts for settlement of his claim for Rs. 1,64,968/- on 17.06.2013 but his claim was not settled for more than a year and thereafter he got sent a legal notice to the petitioner and Insurance Company on 18.04.2014 and the petitioner replied to his legal notice on 22.04.2014 stating that as per Survey Report his claim has been settled @ Rs. 59,031/- and he was asked to collect the same in accordance with procedure. It is further alleged that the complainant sent a reply letter on 09.05.2014 through his lawyer objecting to high handed manner in which his claim was settled. It is further alleged that his claim was not settled as per bills submitted by him without assigning any reason because the complainant failed to oblige them and in this manner the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 409/167/120B of the I.P.C.

4. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that section 64 UM(2) of the Insurance Act stipulates that no claim in respect of a loss shall (unless otherwise directed by the Controller) be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report on the loss that has occurred from a person who holds a licence to act as a Surveyor or loss assessor. He submits that the petitioner was Divisional Manager posted at Jamshedpur and the vehicle in question was met with an accident at Rajauli Ghati. He submits that the claim of the petitioner has been settled to the tune of Rs. 59,702/- pursuant to the insurance issued in favour of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that only a bald allegation has been made of demand of 20% of the assessed claim amount from the Surveyor and he submits that this petitioner has not claimed for that amount and it was by the Surveyor and unnecessarily the petitioner has been dragged in the case. He further submits that by the cognizance order the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner whereas against the Surveyor the cognizance has not been taken who has allegedly demanded 20% of the assessed claim amount. He further submits that no case under section 406 IPC is made out and inspite of that cognizance has been taken. He submits that legal notice has been received by the petitioner wherein it has not been disclosed that anybody has demanded 20% of the assessed claim amount. So far section 64 UM(2) of the Insurance Act is concerned that has been consi