Jharkhand High Court

Bikrant Singh @ Bikrant Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 June, 2022

                                             1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                    ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1142 of 2021

----

Bikrant Singh @ Bikrant Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Girija Nanadan Singh, presently working as Associate Area Manager at Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and having its office at 2nd Floor, Anand Complex, Beside Lalpur Police Station, PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi 834001, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Abhay Shankar Pandey, s/o late Awdesh Kumar Pandey, R/o 67 Vijaya Garden Duplex, Baridih, PO Baridih, PS Birsanagar Town Jamshedpur, District Jamshedpur ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate

----

7/27.06.2022 Heard Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State.

On repeated calls nobody responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

Same was the position on 11.04.2022.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order talking

cognizance dated 01.10.2018 and the entire criminal proceeding arising

out of Complaint Case No.C/360/2019, pending in the court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

O.P.No.2 has filed complaint case alleging therein that complainant

had taken an insurance policy from Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd on

30.9.2013 bearing policy number 501-1093858 under monthly income

plan. The complainant alleges that he was induced and influenced by

official of Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd. i.e. accused no.1 and

official of Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd i.e. accused no.2 in taking

subject policy. That by quoting the salient features and facts of subject

policy, accused no.1 and 2 immediately obtained an amount of Rs.57,000

on 17.7.2013 vide cheque no.465968 drawn on State Bank of India

Jamshedpur Branch, from the complainant. The he was not provided

proposal form, brochure or any policy related documents pertaining to

the subject policy on the date of issuance of the policy and was later

given proposal form without the name of the proposer. It is alleged that

the complainant was not given any intimation regarding third premium

and premium amount was not debited vide ECS despite his having given

instruction for the same. The complainant has alleged that the company

has deliberately chosen not withdraw the third instalment pertaining to

the said policy during the said tenure. The complainant further alleges

that he went to the office of the company and told them about his

grievance and since third instalment was not withdrawn from the

complainant's account, he was bound to deposit third installment through

cheque as per instructions of accused persons. The cheque deposited

towards third instalment of the policy was returned by the company on

vague grounds. Thereafter the complainant alleges that a meager sum of

Rs.932.27 was returned to the complainant as refund amount towards

policy. The complainant alleges that the accused persons have

unilaterally cancelled the policy of the complainant on health ground. It is

further alleged by the complainant that on approaching the accused

persons with his grievances, the accused persons with his grievances, the

accused persons had declined to refund the money already deposited

and further denied to reinstate the subject policy. The complainant

alleges that accused persons have cheated the complainant by

dishonestly inducing him and making false representations with regard to

the policy and misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- in association with

each other by way of fraudulent acts. The complainant alleges that the

accused persons have committed criminal breach of trust and cheated

the complainant by grabbing his hard earned money. The complainant

alleges that the petitioner has committed offence under section 406 and

420 of the IPC for criminal breach of trust and for cheating and prayed

for taking cognizance of offences and issue process against the accused

person.

Mr. Bharat Kumar the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is Branch Manager of Bharti AXA Life

Insurance Co. Ltd. He submits that the policy was issued and since the

payment was not made with regard to 3rd premium and that is why the

policy in question has been lapsed in 2015. It has been alleged that the

amount taken earlier has not been returned back to the O.P.No.2. The

learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 01.10.2018.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is

no illegality in the cognizance order.

The Court has gone through the materials on record and looking

into the complaint petition it transpires that O.P.no.2 paid three premium

and he failed to pay the 4th premium accordingly fresh policy was not

issued and for that the case has been filed wherein criminal colour has

been provided and cognizance has been taken under section 406 and

420 of the IPC. It is settled proposition of law that if any civil wrong is

made out criminal case cannot be instituted. A reference may be made to

the case of 'Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.', (2006) 6 SCC 736,

paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted as under:

"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other

remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."

Moreover, for such type of grievance, the special Act under the

Consumer Protection Act is there and if there is any deficiency in service

a consumer can approach appropriate District Forum or State Consumer

Commission. No case under section 406 and 420 IPC is made out.

Accordingly, order talking cognizance dated 01.10.2018 and the

entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.C/360/2019,

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur so

far as this petitioner is concerned is quashed.

Cr.M.P.No.1142 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.

It is made clear that this order has been passed only with

regard to the petitioner namely Bikrant Singh @ Bikrant Kumar and so

far others are concerned, this Court has not entered into the matter.