The High Court
Case Details
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 Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … Petitioners 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 Cr.M.P. No.2145 of 2022 ------ 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
Legal Reasoning
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.
Arguments
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 For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Atul Vivek, Advocate (In both cases) : 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) : Mrs. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kr. Tiwary, Advocate (In both cases) ------ P R E S E N T 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
Decision
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