Jabalpur; 08.03.2018.

Shri Prakash Upadhyay with Shri T.S. Lamba Advocates for the applicant. None for Respondent No.1.

Shri Vivek Lakhera, G.A. for the Respondent-State.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of proceedings of S.T.No.164/2011 pending before the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol with regard to trial of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections

420, 468 & 471 of the IPC .

The facts of the case in brief are that Respondent No.1 filed a complaint on 28.7.2009 against the applicant alleging that the applicant is a Manager of Reliance General Insurance Company, Jabalpur and he has issued insurance policy with regard to the vehicle having Engine No.3350631 and chasis No.216795 showing the complainant as a owner of the vehicle, while he neither made proposal for issuing insurance policy nor deposited the premium amount as he has never purchased the aforesaid vehicle. The aforesaid act of the applicant came within the purview of commission of offence on account of issuing false/forged vehicle insurance policy in the name of complainant. The complainant could have came in trouble in case of commission of any accident of the vehicle. Hence, the applicant be prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhar district Shahdol vide order dated 15.9.2010 took cognizance against the applicant for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC. Later on the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Shahdol, who transferred the case to the Court of Ist ASJ, Shahdol. The Ist ASJ, Shahdol registered the case as S.T.No.164/2011 and has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC.

The aforesaid proceedings has been challenged by way of this petition on the ground that prima facie there is no material to take cognizance and frame charges against the applicant with regard to commission of the aforesaid offence as the insurance policy of the vehicle is not a forged document. As per the allegation, the complainant’s name has been falsely mentioned in the policy which is a mistake committed during the business without any fraudulent or dishonest intention, as the complainant was never deceived to deliver any property or money with regard to issuing the policy and the insurance policy is indemnity bond which secure the person on whose name it was issued against the future damage caused to the third person. So, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the act of issuing the policy was the act of cheating the complainant.

Apart from it, the policy has been issued on behalf of the company and the applicant cannot be held responsible for the criminal liability committed by other person of the company, as there is no material to show that the applicant was posted at the relevant time in the capacity of issuing the policy or he is signatory or the approving authority of the policy. He has not dealt with anything with regard to issuing the policy concerned and, in case where the offence has been committed by the company, the company is the necessary party. Without adding the company as an accused, an employee of the company cannot be prosecuted on the principle of vicarious liability. Apart from it the alleged act has been committed at Jabalpur, therefore, the Court of Shahdol has no jurisdiction to take cognizance.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the aforesaid proceedings of the case apparently comes within the purview of misuse of the process of the Court and intended to cause injustice to the applicant. Hence, the proceedings be quashed.

Having gone through the record and considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, in view of this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has substance. In the considered opinion of the Court, t