JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Petitioner accused Alok Meena preferred this misc. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the impugned FIR No. 378/2016 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 167 and 193 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.2016, respondent No. 4 complainant Shri Gopal Krishna Sharma submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur interalia alleging that on 17.04.2016 at 8 a.m. the aforesaid complainant along with one Hitendra Kumar went to Nehru Garden where they parked their motor cycle at parking place and went in the garden. On return their motor cycle was found damaged by some unknown vehicle. They shifted their motor cycle to Morani Motors workshop where workshop's people informed that motorcycle has completely damaged, it cannot be repaired. It was alleged that the complainant had taken package police from M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation for damaged vehicle, therefore, complainant submitted his claim application on 29.04.2016 in the office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur where he met with petitioner Shri Alok Meena, Administrative Officer who checked the claim form of complainant and informed to complainant that valuation of the damaged vehicle would be obtained from Surveyor and as per loss caused, the compensation would be paid and at the time of payment of compensation he would have to show the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and would have to submit one cancelled cheque for depositing the amount directly in bank account. It was assured that all formalities would be completed within 30 days. Rajesh Gupta Surveyor was appointed on 29.04.2016 and on 30.04.2016 he submitted in his report that he assessed the loss in the tune of Rs. 44,703/-. Required cancelled cheque was also handed over to Insurance Company. When the claim amount was not deposited in the account of complainant, then complainant met with petitioner accused Alok Meena and asked for early payment where petitioner accused told him that he was busy in RAS Examination and steps for making payment will be taken after one month. 44,703/-. Required cancelled cheque was also handed over to Insurance Company. When the claim amount was not deposited in the account of complainant, then complainant met with petitioner accused Alok Meena and asked for early payment where petitioner accused told him that he was busy in RAS Examination and steps for making payment will be taken after one month. When repeated requests were made for early payment, petitioner Alok Meena became annoyed and started talking in high tone and thereafter petitioner Shri Alok Meena entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused and appointed his yes man Shri Mukesh Pareek as Investigator who was claiming himself as Chief Investigator, General Insurance Claim Cases. After entering into criminal conspiracy with Mukesh Pareek on instructions of petitioner, Mukesh Pareek prepared false report without recording statements of eye-witnesses and without preparing site-plan and on the basis of his false report the claim of claimant was rejected. 3. On the basis of report, police registered impugned FIR No. 378/2016 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 167 and 193 IPC and investigation commenced. Matter is under investigation. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Ashvin Garg submits that as per complaint the incident of motorcycle took place on 17.04.2016 for which report was made to Police Station on 14.05.2016. When the claim form was submitted by respondent No. 4 complainant, the matter was sent for investigation to investigator who submitted report and after considering the report of investigator, the claim was rejected. Since claim was rejected, this false FIR was lodged. He submits that from the bare perusal of FIR, no offence is made out against the present petitioner. Changing of investigator is in domain of Insurance Company. Further, the claim of complainant was more than Rs. 20,000/- while the power of present petitioner was to decided the claims up to Rs. 20,000/- only, therefore, the case of complainant was not in jurisdiction of petitioner. The complainant's claim petition was rejected by Shri S K Meena, Deputy Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., therefore, there is nothing to do by petitioner regarding the impugned allegations. In view of it, the impugned FIR against the present petitioner may be quashed. 5. 20,000/- only, therefore, the case of complainant was not in jurisdiction of petitioner. The complainant's claim petition was rejected by Shri S K Meena, Deputy Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., therefore, there is nothing to do by petitioner regarding the impugned allegations. In view of it, the impugned FIR against the present petitioner may be quashed. 5. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 complainant submits that petitioner accused threatened complainant that he will get rejected his claim and he changed the IO and appointed the IO Shri Mukesh Pareek who is his yes man and Shri Mukesh Pareek submitted false report. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case of complainant is regarding more than Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, it is not in the jurisdiction of present petitioner. Further, from the perusal of allegations levelled in FIR, the dispute is of civil nature which can be challenged before the Civil Court or before the Consumer Forum or Bima Lokpal. 7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 8. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] Hon'ble Supreme framed seven grounds for quashing FIR as under:- "105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 9. Here, in the case, the grievance of respondent No. 4 complainant is that his Insurance claim was rejected by the Insurance Company and the allegations against the present petitioner is that even after repeated requests, he did not pass the claim of complainant and changed the investigator and intentionally dismissed the claim. 10. From the perusal of factual report submitted by learned PP., it reveals that the Insurance Claim of respondent No. 4 complainant is more than Rs. 10. From the perusal of factual report submitted by learned PP., it reveals that the Insurance Claim of respondent No. 4 complainant is more than Rs. 20,000/- which is not in the jurisdiction of present petitioner accused and mere changing of investigator does not attract the ingredients of alleged offence qua the petitioner accused. Not only this, the investigator was also changed by Deputy Manager Shri Srawan Kr. Meena as apprised by the IO, therefore, the impugned FIR is not sustainable against the present petitioner in view of the grounds framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. (Supra). As it does not disclose any offence against the present petitioner accused. Therefore, this misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR NO. 378/2016 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 167 and 193 IPC qua petitioner accused Alok Meena is quashed and set aside.