Mr. Devendera Kumar Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2639 of 2016 ---- Mr. Devendera Kumar Pathak .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 409 of 2021 ---- Mahendra Munot .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Opposite Parties ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- (Cr.M.P. No. 2639 of 2016) For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 (Cr.M.P. No. 409 of 2021) For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 :- Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate :- Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP :- Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate :- Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate :- Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. :- Km. Poonam Verma, Advocate 12/11.06.2024 Heard the parties. ---- 2. All these cases are arising out of Complaint Case No.49 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad and the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance dated 28.06.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.49 of 2016 and prayer is made to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 3. Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2639 of 2016 submits that the petitioner at the time of alleged offence, he was not posted as Branch Manager/Regional Manager of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. at Dhanbad. He submits that he was posted at that time at Dumka and he was later on Cr.M.P. No.2639 of 2016 with Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2021 --1-- transferred to the branch of Dhanbad and the alleged occurrence is said to be of the earlier. He further submits that the petitioner is not named by name and the only branch manager by posts the accused have been made. He submits that the summon has also been issued to the branch manager and not in the name of the petitioner. He submits that only post cannot be summoned to appear in criminal case under the IPC. He further submits that the entire case is based upon the repudiation of the policy. He submits that on the ground of concealment of material facts of the earlier ailment of the wife of the opposite party No.2 the policy was repudiated. He further submits that, if any, case is made out that is civil in nature for that criminal case has been lodged. 4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2021 further add and submits that the petitioner Mahendra Munot at the relevant time was Vice President of the said company and he was posted at Mumbai. He submits that false allegations are made of manhandling of the opposite party No.2. According to him, it cannot be expected that a person of stature of Vice President who resides in Mumbai will come to Dhanbad to manhandle the opposite party No.2. He further submits that, if any, case is made out for repudiation of the claim that is civil in nature. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-4 which is a letter address to the opposite party No.2 by which claim was repudiated on the ground of concealment and reasons was disclosed in the said Cr.M.P. No.2639 of 2016 with Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2021 --2-- letter and submits as such no criminal case is made out. He further submits that so far manhandling is concerned, the learned Court has not taken any cognizance in view of that false allegations of man handling was made by the opposite party No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case is arising out of the complaint case and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. 6. Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malitiar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the policy was purchased, the premium was paid on time and in spite of that after death, the claim was not made in view of that the case is made out. He further submits that allegations are there of manhandling and in view of that criminal case is made out. He submits that this Court may not exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage and that can be a subject matter of trial. 7. In view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the complaint. In the complaint petition itself, it is disclosed that the policy was purchased by the wife of the opposite party No.2 and further allegations are there that the after the death of the wife of the opposite party No.2, the repudiation was made. Policy was purchased on 11.03.2014 and the death of the wife of the opposite party No.2 occurred on 19.03.2014. In letter address to the opposite party No.2 contained in Annexure 4 in Cr.M.P. No.409 of Cr.M.P. No.2639 of 2016 with Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2021 --3-- 2021, it is disclosed that as per the documents received by the company at the time of death claim registration the company was understood that the life assured expired on 19th March, 2014 due to Acute Pancreatitis with Multi Organ Dysfunction Syndrome and Cardio Respiratory Failure that is within 8 days of policy insurance and on assessment at claims stage it is noted that the life assured had consulted at hospital on 16th July, 2011 and on 21st July, 2011 for treatment in a follow up case of pancreatitis and the above mentioned medical history was prior to the policy issuance and the said was suppressed. Thus, this is a case of repudiation of the policy purchased by the wife of the opposite party No.2. Further the learned Court has not been pleased to take cognizance so far allegation of assault is concerned. The cognizance is taken under Section 406, 120B and 504 of IPC which suggests that the learned Court has also not found the allegation of manhandle true. 8. If a policy is repudiated on certain grounds, the opposite party No.2 is having the alternative remedy either to move before the District Consumer Forum or to file Civil Suit for deciding of the said repudiation. It is well settled that any deficiency detected post purchase for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer foras, the reference may be made to the case of Debashis Sinha & Ors. versus M/S R.N.R Enterprises reported in (2023) 3 SCC page 195. The opposite party No.2 has not availed the said remedy and the present criminal case has been filed. Further the Cr.M.P. No.2639 of 2016 with Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2021 --4-- summon has been issued upon the branch manager that is post and not upon any person by name which is against the mandate of law and vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the post under the IPC. 9. In the above background to allow the proceeding against the petitioner, who happens to be the branch manager and Vice President of the said company will amount to abuse of process of law. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.06.2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.49 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed. 11.
Decision
These petitions are allowed and disposed of. 12. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is there that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this order as this order has been passed only considering the criminal aspect of the matter. Sangam/ A.F.R. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Cr.M.P. No.2639 of 2016 with Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2021 --5--