IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1110 of 2023 ------

Care Health Insurance Limited, having its registered office at 5th Floor, 19 Chawla House, Nehru Place, New Delhi and Corporate Office at Bipul Text Square, Tower ‘C’, 3rd Floor, Gold Club Road, Guru Gram, PO & PS- Sector 43, District- Guru Gram, PIN 122039 represented through tis Manager (Legal), Mr. Parth Arora, aged about 26 years, son of Ish Kumar Arora, having residence at Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, SO West Delhi, PO + PS + District – West Delhi- 110018 (NCT of Delhi) and having Office at Vipul Tech Square, Tower C, 3rd Floor, Sector- 43, Golf Course Road, PO + PS + District –

Gurgaon – 122009 (Haryana) … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Neeraj Prakash, son of Late Prakash Singh, resident of D-2, Block ‘A’ Narayan Enclave, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, PO + PS- Bariatu, District- Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.281 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Health Insurance Company and the complainant/informant was sold a policy by the petitioner. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.20,171/-. The dispute arose in respect of the premium of the year 2021. While the complainant claims to have paid the premium of Rs.20,171/- but the petitioner refused to have received the said amount; as after payment, the banker of the petitioner intimated the petitioner that there was a chargeback request made by the complainant, whereas it is the case of the complainant that no chargeback request has been made by him. It is the case of the petitioner that because of non-payment of the premium of the policy within the stipulated time, the complainant was a defaulter, hence, his policy was cancelled.

4. It is the case of the complainant that without any intention to litigate they have paid Rs.20,405/- to the petitioner and after the institution of the case, they have again paid Rs.26,197.15/- with interest through NEFT on 26.05.2023 and the transaction ID of the same has been mentioned in the Supplementary Affidavit. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class (XXI), Ranchi referred the Complaint Case No.7355 of 2021 to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. basing upon which Bariatu P.S. Case No.281 of 2021 was registered and police took up the investigation of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on at present and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:-

“6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating,