Jharkhand High Court
Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2144 of 2022
------
1. Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd., Corporate Office: Ext. 3rd Floor,
Panshil, Tech Park, Viman Nagar, Pune - 411014, Maharashtra, and
Local Office at: Bajaj Finance Ltd, The Sanctum, 2nd & 3rd Floor 41, S.
N.P. Area, Sakchi, PO & PS: Sakchi, Town- Jamshedpur, District-
East Singbhum- 831001 represented by Lalit Kumar Tyagi aged
about 42 year, S/o Dusyant Kumar Tyagi, Senior Legal Manager
resident of Cerebrum IT Park B2, Kalyaninagar, P.O. & P.S.- Viman
Nagar, District- Pune, Pune-411014, Maharashtra.
2. Rajeev Jain @ Rajeev Paras Jain, aged about 51 S/o Paras Chandra
Jain, Managing Director, Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd, Ext. 3rd Floor,
Panshil, Tech Park, Viman Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Viman Nagar, Dist.-
Pune, Pune-411014, Maharashtra
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. S. Venkata Ramanan Srinivasan, aged about 49 years, s/o Late S.
Srinivasan, resident of 3rd floor, Shantiniketan Building, Bistupur,
P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
... Opposite Parties
With
------
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., I.S. No.208/1-8, Viman
Nagar Pune - 411-14, Maharashtra represented by Abhineet Sharan
aged about 28 years S/o Bhola Sharan, resident at Rajendra Ram
Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna, P.O.- GPO Patna, P.S.- Gandhi
Maidan, District- Patna, Bihar.
2. Sanjeev Bajaj @ Sanjiv Bajaj aged about 52 years S/o Rahul Bajaj,
Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., resident at
Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune, P.O. & P.S.- Yerwada, Pune- 411006,
1 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
District- Pune, Maharashtra.
3. Kayzad Hiramanek @ Kayzad Parvez Hiramanek, aged about 49
years S/o Pervez Rustom, Executive Vice President, Bajaj Allianz
Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Bajaj Allianz House, 5th Floor Airport Road,
Yerwada, P.O. & P.S.- Yerwada, Pune- 411006, District- Pune,
Maharashtra. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. S. Venkata Ramanan Srinivasan, aged about 49 years, s/o: Late S.
Srinivasan, resident of 3rd floor, Shantiniketan Building, Bistupur,
P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Atul Vivek, Advocate
(In both cases)
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
(In Cr.M.P. No.2144 of 2022)
Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Sp.P.P
(In Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022)
For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
(In both cases)
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Since, both these cases have been filed with the same prayer arising out
the same case; hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed
of by this common judgment.
3. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
2 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the
cognizance order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.2233 of 2021
whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur
has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons against the
petitioners.
4. The allegations against the petitioners of both the cases is that they by
having the dishonest intention induced the petitioner by way of cheating to
part with Rs.3,56,463.84/- to the accused No.1 of the protest cum complaint
petition, who is the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022 and by so
cheating, dishonestly induced him to part with money, on the guise of issuing
an insurance policy by misleading the petitioner that the same will cover the
diagnosis of critical illness i.e. angiography including Group Credit Protection
Plus (GCPP) issued the policy also. After buying the insurance policy, the
petitioner suffered cardiac arrest on 16.12.2019 and underwent an operation
incurring a expense of Rs.3 Lakhs and raised the claim before the Insurance
Company, who are the accused persons of the case. But, then the accused
persons of the case who were the petitioners herein cheated by issuing a fresh
policy behind the back of the petitioners and rejecting the claim of the
complainant on the basis of the terms and conditions of the fresh insurance
policy. Though, the complainant was entitled to the refund of the expenses
incurred by him of his treatment as per the original policy issued to the
complainant but by way of cheating the petitioners deprived of the
complainant as per the promise made to him, while parting with money.
3 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
5. There is specific allegation against the petitioners of this case who are the
accused persons of the complaint that the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.2144/2022
and the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P.2145/2022 persuaded the complainant to
became the subscriber of said scheme and cheated and thereby dishonestly
induced him to part with money and thus have committed the offences as
alleged. The complainant first filed a complaint which was referred to police
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure basing upon which
police registered a case and took up investigation of the case and submitted
Final Report without sending the petitioners for trial. Thereafter, the
complainant filed protest cum complaint petition which were numbered as
Case No.2233/2021 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, basing upon the
materials available in the record being the protest cum complaint petition,
statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of
inquiry witnesses found prima facie case against all the petitioners for having
committed the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia
vs. State of NCT, Delhi reported in (2019) 17 SCC 193 that there in para-21, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed by applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs.
CBI reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609, that an individual either as Director or
Managing Director or Chairman of the company can be made an accused along
with company only if there is sufficient material to prove his active role
coupled with criminal intent.
4 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022 of
playing any deception or any active role with criminal intent.
8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
similarly, though, it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint that the
petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No.2144/2022 persuaded the complainant of not
becoming the subscriber of said scheme of insurance policy, but the same is
absolutely a false statement made only for wrecking vengeance against the
petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No.2144/2022.
9. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay
Mitra vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 11 in para-17 of
which, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that in its
judgment in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha reported in
(1973) 2 SCC 823, it was held that unless the complaint showed that the
accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time when the
complainant parted with money, it would not amount to an offence under
Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and it may only amount to breach of contract,
hence, it is submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is lastly
submitted that that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners in these two
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, be quashed and set aside.
10. Learned Spl.P.Ps. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the
5 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
petitioner made in both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and it is
submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC
2248 that in Para-7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is
mainly concerned with allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in
support of the same case and he is only to be prima facie satisfied, whether,
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and that it is
not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the
merits or demerits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction which is to be sparingly used and once the
Magistrate had exercised its discretion, it is not for the High Court or even the
Supreme Court to substitute it own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to
examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the
allegations in the complaint, if proved would ultimately end in the conviction
of the accused and these considerations are totally foreign to the scope and
ambit of an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which
culminates into an order under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Learned Spl. P.P. also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda &
Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted
by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant
portion of which reads as under :-
6 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
"Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has
virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at
this stage and while deciding the application under Section
482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of
decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in
exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the
stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case
being considered. (Emphasis supplied)
12. It is next submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and
the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that there is direct and specific
allegation against all the petitioners except Petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P.
No.2145/2022 that they persuaded the complainant to part with money by
cheating and thereby deceiving him, hence, it is submitted that the same is
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of Indian
Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that both these Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed.
13. 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 so far as the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022 namely Sanjeev
Bajaj @ Sanjiv Bajaj is concerned, and who is arrayed as the Accused No.2 in
Protest cum Complaint petition, it appears that he has been arrayed as an
accused only because he is the Managing Director of the Bajaj Allianz Life
Insurance Company Limited. There is absolutely no material to suggest any
active role coupled with criminal intent having played by him in the entire
transaction, in view of the settled principle of law which has been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. State
of NCT of Delhi (Supra).
7 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
14. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated
25.04.2022 in Complaint Case No.2233/2021 is not sustainable against the
Petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022 as in the absence of any allegation of
any active role coupled with criminal intent against him even if the allegations
made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of
inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence
punishable under Section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code is not made out so far as
the said petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022 is concerned.
15. So far as the remaining petitioners of these two Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions, as already mentioned above in the cause title of this judgment is
concerned, there is direct and specific allegation that they cheated and thereby
dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs.3,56,463.84/- in
furtherance of their common intention and even issued a policy to cover the
reimbursement and expenses incurred in diagnosis of critical illness i.e.
Angiography but behind the back of the complainant, they issued another
policy with different terms and conditions and denied the amount due and
payable to the complainant and on the basis of the materials available in the
record. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found prima facie
case for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code
which in view of the settled principle of law regarding the limited scope for
interference with an order issuing process, passed by the Magistrate in exercise
of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as already
indicated above; does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
16. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable
reason to quash the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.2233/2021. Hence, both these
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions except the Petitioner No.2- namely Sanjeev
Bajaj @ Sanjiv Bajaj, of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022 does not have any merit, hence,
the same being without any merit, be dismissed.
17. In view of the discussions made above, it is made clear that the
cognizance order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.2233/2021 shall continue
against the two petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.2144/2022 and the Petitioner No.1
and 3 of Cr.M.P. No.2145/2022.
18. Both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of September, 2024
AFR/ Abhiraj
9 Cr. M.P. No.2144 of 2022 with Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022
