Care Health Insurance Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6919 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Care Health Insurance Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                           (2025:JHHC:34414)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.1110 of 2023
                                         ------

Care Health Insurance Limited, having its registered office at 5 th Floor, 19 Chawla House, Nehru Place, New Delhi and Corporate Office at Bipul Text Square, Tower 'C', 3rd Floor, Gold Club Road, Guru Gram, PO & PS- Sector 43, District- Guru Gram, PIN 122039 represented through tis Manager (Legal), Mr. Parth Arora, aged about 26 years, son of Ish Kumar Arora, having residence at Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, SO West Delhi, PO + PS + District - West Delhi- 110018 (NCT of Delhi) and having Office at Vipul Tech Square, Tower C, 3rd Floor, Sector- 43, Golf Course Road, PO + PS + District -

            Gurgaon - 122009 (Haryana)                    ...            Petitioner
                                            Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Neeraj Prakash, son of Late Prakash Singh, resident of D-2, Block 'A' Narayan Enclave, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, PO + PS- Bariatu, District- Ranchi ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P
             For the O.P. No.2         : Ms. Sharda Kumari, 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, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings

in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.281 of 2021 involving the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

(2025:JHHC:34414)

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Health

Insurance Company and the complainant/informant was sold a policy

by the petitioner. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.20,171/-.

The dispute arose in respect of the premium of the year 2021. While the

complainant claims to have paid the premium of Rs.20,171/- but the

petitioner refused to have received the said amount; as after payment,

the banker of the petitioner intimated the petitioner that there was a

chargeback request made by the complainant, whereas it is the case of

the complainant that no chargeback request has been made by him. It is

the case of the petitioner that because of non-payment of the premium

of the policy within the stipulated time, the complainant was a

defaulter, hence, his policy was cancelled.

4. It is the case of the complainant that without any intention to

litigate they have paid Rs.20,405/- to the petitioner and after the

institution of the case, they have again paid Rs.26,197.15/- with interest

through NEFT on 26.05.2023 and the transaction ID of the same has

been mentioned in the Supplementary Affidavit. The learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class (XXI), Ranchi referred the Complaint Case No.7355

of 2021 to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. basing upon which

Bariatu P.S. Case No.281 of 2021 was registered and police took up the

investigation of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation

of the case is still going on at present and charge-sheet has not yet been

submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma

(2025:JHHC:34414)

Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10

SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:-

"6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC." (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has

reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the

offence of cheating, the accused must have played deception with the

victim since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. If the

intention to cheat develops later on the same will not amount to

cheating.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd.

vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2024 0 INSC 807 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that a juristic person

cannot have a mens rea and unless mens rea of the staff member of

dishonestly inducing someone deceive to any property to any person,

the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code will

not be made out.

7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the premium amount paid to continue a health insurance policy cannot

be termed as 'entrustment' as that word has been used in Section 405 of

the Indian Penal Code, because such amount is not paid for safe

(2025:JHHC:34414)

keeping rather it is paid as consideration for availing the policy. It is

next submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest

misappropriation of any property by the petitioner, therefore, the

offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not

made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that in the absence

of any allegation that the petitioner dishonestly or fraudulently signed,

executed or became a party to any deed or instrument which operated

to transfer or subject any property or any interest therein to any charge

and which contained any false statement relating to the consideration

for such transfer or charge, the offence punishable under Section 423 of

the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the

prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

8. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel

for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the

prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. Learned counsel for

the opposite party No.2 submits that the payment of Rs.20,171/-

towards the annual premium of the concerned health policy is an

entrustment which has been dishonestly misappropriated by the

petitioner, hence, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian

Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted

that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

9. 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 offence punishable under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no

(2025:JHHC:34414)

allegation against the petitioner of playing any deception since the

beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of

the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their

entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar &

Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663

paragraph-18 of which reads as under:-

"18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust." (Emphasis supplied)

that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust it is not

sufficient to show that the money has been retained by the accused

person but it must be also shown that the accused person dishonestly

disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.

(2025:JHHC:34414)

The mere fact that the accused did not pay the money to the

complainant does not amount of criminal breach of trust.

11. Now, coming to the facts of the case there is absolutely no

allegation against the petitioner of any dishonest misappropriation of

the entrusted property. Furthermore, a payment made by way of

commercial transaction towards premium of a health insurance policy

cannot be termed as the word 'entrustment' used in Section 405 of the

Indian Penal Code, because such amount of money is not given to the

person concerned for safe keeping.

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are

considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the

petitioner.

13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 423 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said

offence are as follows:-

(1) The accused signed, executed, or became a party to a deed;

(2) The deed operated to transfer or create a charge on any property or interest therein;

(3) The deed contained false recitals either as to consideration or with regard to the beneficiaries for whom it was intended to operate;

(4) The accused acted dishonestly or fraudulently.

14. Now, coming to the facts of the case there is absolutely no

allegation against the petitioner of any deed which operated to transfer

(2025:JHHC:34414)

or create a charge on any property or interest therein. In the absence of

this essential ingredient, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered

to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 423

of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

15. In view of the discussions made above since none of the offence

in respect of which the F.I.R. of Bariatu P.S. Case No.281 of 2021 has

been registered, is made out even if the entire allegations made against

the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of

the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding

against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore,

this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Bariatu P.S.

Case No.281 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named

above.

16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Bariatu P.S. Case

No.281 of 2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above.

17. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th of November, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 27/11/2025