Ch. Veeraraghavaiah v. State Of Bihar — 1998 DIGILAW 553 (PAT)

Judgment 1. In this application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28-3-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1559/97 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Secs. 323, 504 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant opposite party No.2 is the Manager of M/s. Manish Travels. He, in the capacity of Manager, filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner who is the Regional Manager and one Managing on rector of United India Insurance Company Ltd. 3. The prosecution story, inter alia, is that the complainant is the Manager of M/s. Manish Travels and Shri Sudhakar Prasad is the proprietor of the said firm who carries on transport business. The two vehicles of the company were insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and both the vehicles met with an accident and badly damaged. The complainant lodged two claims with the Insurance Company. The allegation in, the complaint petition is that after the verification of the claim the accused persons were informed and directed by the Head Office for payment of compensation to the complainant but the accused persons avoided payment of compensation to the complainant on one pretext or the other. Further allegation is that the accused person in formed the employer of the complainant on telephone that he may come to the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company at Muzaffarpur and collect the payment by cheques as his claims have been settled. It is alleged that as per the direction the complainant visited the office of the Insurance Company at Muzaffarpur to meet the accused persons. The complainant was called in the Chamber of the Divisional Manage) and he was asked to pay Rs. one lac for the settlement of claim and to get the 20m sensation amount. It is, further alleged that when the complainant refused to pay any bribe illegally claimed be the accused persons the accused No.1 (petitioner) started abusing the complainant and he was-assaulted and convened. The accused persons alleged to have obtained the signature of the complainant on a blank piece of paper under threat of his life. 4. It is, further alleged that when the complainant refused to pay any bribe illegally claimed be the accused persons the accused No.1 (petitioner) started abusing the complainant and he was-assaulted and convened. The accused persons alleged to have obtained the signature of the complainant on a blank piece of paper under threat of his life. 4. On the other hand, the petitioners case inter alia is that after the claims were lodged by the owner of the vehicle surveyor was deputed for the purpose of survey of the vehicle allegedly met with an accident, the vehicles were surveyed and the Divisional Officer of the Insurance Company verified necessary papers including the driving licence, registration book, permit, etc. and it was found that driver of one of the vehicle was having no driving licence at the material time of accident. The Divisional Office sent the claim file to the Regional Office with its note for settlement highlighting its observations on the mala fide manipulations found in the driving licence. It is stated that the Divisional Office after giving its note forwarded the file to the Regional Office for consideration. The Regional Office submitted and forwarded the claim to its Head Office since the amount of claim involved has exceeded to its financial authority. The Head Office advised the Regional Office to arrange further investigation and the claim of the complainant was further investigated independently by the Investigator, who after making thorough inquiry has come to the conclusion that there has been a deliberate manipulation in the record of the driving licence in order to suppress the name of actual driver who was driving the bus at the material time of accident. Ultimately, the Head Office of the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the basis of finding of the Investigator. The petitioners further case is that so far the claim of loss and damage to another vehicle is concerned the same was assessed at Rs. 2.03.235.00 and the same was accepted by the owner of the vehicle and the compensation amount has been paid. 5. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance as being illegal and abuse of the process of Court. 2.03.235.00 and the same was accepted by the owner of the vehicle and the compensation amount has been paid. 5. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance as being illegal and abuse of the process of Court. The learned counsel firstly submitted that from reading of the complaint petition itself it will appear that the allegations made therein are false and fabricated and has no substance in it. Learned counsel drawn my attention to some of the relevant facts supported by documents and submitted that these facts totally falsify the case of the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that undisputedly two climes were lodged by the complainant which has proceeded and on 20-6-1991 the Divisional Office at Muzaffarpur sent the claim file to the Regional Office at Patna. On 5-8-1997 Additional note was submitted by Muzaffarpur Divisional Office to the Regional Office wherein the finding relating to driving licence was recorded and the claim was forwarded to the Regional Office for consideration. The Regional Office on 19-8-1997 forwarded the claim file to its Head Office situated at Chennai. On 26-8-1997 the Head Office by letter advised the Regional Office at Patna to arrange further investigation... on its guideline. The Regional Office accordingly got the claim investigated independently and report was sent to the Head Office. The Head Office took a decision to repudiate the claim vide memo No. 1627 dated 5-11-1997 and the Patna Regional Office was advised to instruct the Divisional Office at Muzaffarpur to immediately repudiate the claim. Mr. Mahto submitted that it is only after the claim of the owner of the vehicle was repudiated the complainant filed the complaint petition on 13-11-1997 making false allegation about the incident of 12-11-1997. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party firstly submitted that when the learned Magistrate after considering the allegations made in the complaint petition and the evidence of the witnesses recorded his satisfaction about the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner then this Court in the exercise of power under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not interfere with the said order. Learned counsel then submitted that exercise of power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is exceptional one and the High Court should not scrutinise the correctness of the allegations when the allegations prima facie constitute an offence. 7. During the course of argument Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh has not disputed the fact that the two vehicles of the company were insured with the Insurance Company by virtue of policy contract. It is also not disputed that the Insurance Policy is a contract entered into by and between the owner of the vehicles and the Insurance Company whereby the latter undertook to indemnity the owner of the vehicle in respect of any loss or damage to the vehicle subject to terms, conditions and stipulation contained in the policy contract. It is also not disputed that the said policy contract contains an arbitration clause whereby the parties agreed for adjudication of their disputes that may arise in respect to claim through arbitration. 8. Now, I will like to examine the allegations made in the complaint petition, copy thereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the application. In this complaint petition, the Managing Director of the Insurance Company having its office at Chennai (Madras) and the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company at its regional office, Patna has been made accused. The complaint petition was filed on 13-11-1997. It was alleged that the owner of the vehicle was informed on telephone by the accused persons that the claim amount is ready for payment and he should contact them in the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company at Muzaffarpur. It was further alleged that the owner of the vehicle asked the complainant to the Divisional Office and collect the claim amount. Accordingly, the complainant went to the Divisional Office where both the accused persons were present. The complainant was taken to the Chamber of the Divisional Manager where the accused persons demanded one lac of rupees and it was said that unless that amount is paid the claim amount shall not be released. Accordingly, the complainant went to the Divisional Office where both the accused persons were present. The complainant was taken to the Chamber of the Divisional Manager where the accused persons demanded one lac of rupees and it was said that unless that amount is paid the claim amount shall not be released. It was further alleged that when the complainant was (sic) the collar and the Managing Director (accused No. 2) started beating him and another person to whom the complainant does not know surrounded him and started pressing his neck and when he came in the control the accused persons took his signature on plain papers, it is further alleged that the Managing Director released the complainant and told him that he may go and take whatever and on he likes. In a nut shell the case of the complainant is that the Managing Director posted in the Head Office at Chennai and the Regional Manager posted at Regional Office at Patna went to their Divisional Office at Muzaffarpur on the relevant date and they demanded bribe in the Chamber of the Divisional Office at Muzaffarpur. The petitioner not only annexed several correspondence made between the Head Office and the Divisional Office and the Regional Office but also annexed vouchers regarding the expenses incurred in connection with the business review meeting held at Patna on the relevant date in presence of the Regional Manager. From reading of the allegations made in the entire complaint petition, it appears to be so absurd that it cannot be believed. Despite the absurd allegations made in the complaint petition the Magistrate in his order proceeded on conjecture and surmises. The Magistrate observed that when the claim made by the owner of the vehicle was withheld because of manipulation in the driving licence then the question of calling the complainant for payment of compensation does not arise. The Magistrate further observed that there may be possibility of the complainant going to the Divisional Office for knowing the progress of the claim. Inspite of those observations the Magistrate came to the conclusion that a case under Secs. 323, 504 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner (Regional Manager) but no case is made out against the Managing Director (accused No.2). Inspite of those observations the Magistrate came to the conclusion that a case under Secs. 323, 504 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner (Regional Manager) but no case is made out against the Managing Director (accused No.2). its surprising that in the complaint petition itself the complainant has alleged the commission of offence by both the Officers the Managing Director and the Regional Director and it is alleged that it was accused No. 2, the Managing Director who assaulted the complainant and confined him and obtained his signature on blank papers. But surprisingly according to the Magistrate no case is made out against the Managing Director. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind on the allegations made in the complaint petition in its right perspective. 9. It is true that the High Court in the exercise of power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. should be very cautious in interfering with the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance or quashing the F.I.R. complaint but the High Court may in the exercise of that power, interfere in the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajanlal the Apex Court observed that in cases where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala vide intention or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive then the fight Court should interfere in such proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 10. Recently the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. V/s. Special Judicial Magistrate, has observed: "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." 11. As notice above, admittedly the insurance company namely the United India Insurance Company is a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India and it is a Government of India Undertaking and the Officers are public servant. From perusal of the relevant facts narrated in the complaint petition as also in this application, it is evident that the complainant filed the complaint petition only after the claim of the complainant in respect of one vehicle was repudiated on 5-11-1997 by the Head Office and the said decision was communicated to the Regional Office with a direction to the Divisional Office to issue a letter of repudiation. Nowhere in the, complaint petition it is said that claim in respect of one vehicle was settled and paid to the owner of the vehicle nor this fact has been denied by the complainant by filing any counter-affidavit. Nowhere in the, complaint petition it is said that claim in respect of one vehicle was settled and paid to the owner of the vehicle nor this fact has been denied by the complainant by filing any counter-affidavit. It is really absurd and highly improbable to believe that the Managing Director being the Senior most officer in the hierarchy and the Regional Manager will come from Chennai to Patna to their Divisional Office at Muzaffarpur on 12-11-1957 for the purpose of demanding bribe in prescience of the Divisional Manager and other staff of the Divisional Office, that too after the claim was repudiated on 13-11-1997 at the level of Head Office It is apparent that after the claim was repudiated the complainant and his employer, instead of approaching the right forum have adopted a wrong method to get the claim settled under the threat of criminal prosecution and by pressurising the Managing Director and the Regional Manager of the Company. 12. From perusal of order impugned it will appear that the learned Magistrate even after doubting the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint petition, took cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of conjecture and surmises. As noticed above the Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind and has passed the order mechanically. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Court in the exercise of power under Sec. 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure should interfere with the order taking cognizance in order to prevent the abuse to the process of Court and give justice to the petitioner. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 14. Before parting with this order, I must make it clear that any observation made in this order will not in any way prejudice the case of the complainant in a prejudice the case of the complainant in a proceeding if instituted by him or by the owner of the vehicle for the recovery of alleged claim and such proceeding shall be decided in accordance with law on its own merit.