Jharkhand High Court
Anand Roy vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Cr. M.P. No.3038 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3038 of 2023
------
Anand Roy, aged about 50 years, son of Late J. S. Roy, resident of
New Tank Street, Valluvar Kottam High School, P.O. & P.S.
Nungambakkam, District Nungambakkam, Chennai
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Santosh Kumar Sureka, aged about 68 years, son of Late Devi
Prasad Sureka, resident of 450, Balaji Niwas, near Nasta Bread
Factory, Sidhatoli, Arra gate, Post Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilway, District
Ranchi. ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Anupama Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shankar Singh, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the
petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.10615 of 2022 including the
order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi
whereby and where under the cognizance for the offence punishable under
Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken qua the petitioner
only; which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV,
Ranchi.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the co-accused Pradeep Kumar and Asif
Alam being representatives of Star Health and Allied Insurance Company
Limited made a health insurance of the complainant under the scheme 'Senior
Citizen Red Carpet Health Insurance Policy Cashless' and collected two
installments of the premium of the said insurance policy. The complainant
suffered an injury of fracture on his leg and got himself treated in the hospital
and incurred an expense of Rs.50,000/- but the said health insurance company
did not pay the hospital bill and expenses of the complainant.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioner either in the body of the
complaint or in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant or the
enquiry witnesses except mentioning the name of the petitioner in the array of
the name and address of the accused at serial No.1 and in the absence of the
same, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of
process of law. It is next submitted that petitioner is the Managing Director of
the Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited. It is further submitted
that there is no allegation against the petitioner of being personally involved in
any of the alleged transactions relating to the insurance policy taken by the
complainant. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate &
Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 paragraph-28 of which reads as under:-
"28. 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. 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. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise 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."
Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding initiated
against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.10615 of 2022
including the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-
XXIV, Ranchi which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-
XXIV, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with
Complaint Case No.10615 of 2022 including the order dated 17.07.2023 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi which is now pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi and submit that though in
the complaint, in the statement on solemn affirmation or the statement of the
enquiry witnesses, specific allegation has not been made against the petitioner
but admittedly the petitioner being the Managing Director of the said Star
Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited, the petitioner is squarely
responsible for the acts committed by the said company. Hence, it is submitted
that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of having
committed any act, deed or thing which constitutes the offence punishable
under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no averment even in
the complaint or the statement on solemn affirmation or the statement of the
enquiry witnesses as to why the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in
the complaint. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner
has any personal involvement in the transaction with the complainant on
behalf of the company concerned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
judgment passed in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special
Economic Zone Ltd & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 806 has held that
the criminal proceedings cannot be kick started against the Managing Director
and other management personnel of a company in absence of specific
allegations and their role in the crime. It is needless to mention, that Indian
Penal Code do not envisage any vicarious liability.
7. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi has committed a grave error in
taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/34 of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and this is a fit case where the entire
criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with
Complaint Case No.10615 of 2022 including the order dated 17.07.2023 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi which is now pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside qua
the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the
petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.10615 of 2022 including the
order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi
which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi,
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd of January, 2024
AFR/ Animesh
