SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 10.02.2025 SANDEEP KUMAR ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Ms. Aayushi, Advocate for Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing/setting aside of F.I.R. No.133 dated 31.08.2019, (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station 'Maqboolpura' Amritsar. (Annexure P-1), and also consequential proceedings arising out of the aforementioned FIR.

2. Factual matrix of the case unfolds that the complainant namely Hari Singh had purchased one car UVA-Sail from the company in which the petitioner is working as Business Development Manager namely M/s S.V.Motors at G.T. road, Amritsar on 09.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- , one insurance cover note was also issued by the said company in favour of the complainant but due to some technical error, the company issued a letter dated 13.11.2015 to the complainant informing to get the cover note changed as the company had issued new cover note pertaining to different Insurance company and the same was issued on 01.12.2015 with respect to the said car without charging any money from the complainant.

3. Thereafter, the car of the complainant met with an accident on 03.01.2016 and pursuant to that, the complainant applied to the Insurance Company for getting the claim of insurance but the surveyor of the Insurance Company formed a report according to which the Insurance company had repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding the said car which compelled the complainant to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum at Amritsar against the Insurance Company and the company namely M/s S.V.Motors just to settle out the matter in a peaceful way had given an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- which were deposited in the account of the complainant vide cheque no. 590916 dated 04.01.2019 and thereafter he withdrew his complaint from the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum at Amritsar. However, later on the asking of the M/s S.V. Motors of the sale letter with regard to mangled remains and debris of the damaged car, the complainant refused to handover the sale letter and indeed again filed a fresh complaint demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- more as interest and lodged an Fir No. 133 dated 31.08.2019 under section 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, Amritsar.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the instant FIR as he is only working in the company as Business Development Manager and has nothing to do with the Insurance sector. He further contends that the petitioner had neither issued any cover note nor had any dealing whatsoever with the complainant added with the fact that once the entire dispute stands mutually settled wherein the complainant had received the entire amount i.e.Rs.6,00,000/- from the company so the instant FIR is only an arm twisting method to extract more money from the company.

5. It is also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the offence under section 420 IPC is not made out wherein there was no intent to deceit from the very inception as the company had already paid the entire amount to the complainant.

6. Per contra, state counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit by Gurinderbir Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, East, Amritsar which is taken on record. Learned state counsel submits that the complainant namely Hari Singh has not be arrayed as a party to the instant case. He further submits that the petitioner and one Minakshi (now dead) were responsible for providing insurance policy of the car but on enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner and Minakshi had not deposited premium amount of Rs. 20501/- wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top