High High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC TTACK CRLMP No. 749 of 2024 New India Ass Ltd. Assurance Co. …. Petitioner Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Oppos pposite Parties Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC (O.P. N Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate (O Mr. D.K. Sahu, Advocate (O Mr. R.K. Chhotaray, Advocate (O Mr. R.K. Dash, Advocate Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate (O Mr. K. Rath, Advocate (O Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate (O.P. No Mr. A.K. Patra, Advocate (O Mr. Karunakar Rath, Advocate (O Mr. B.S. Das, Advocate (O Mr. A. Patanaik, Advocate (O Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate (O (O.P. Nos.1 to 5) ate (O.P. No.21) cate (O.P. No.6) cate (O.P. No.8) (O.P. No.9) ate (O.P. No.12) ate (O.P. No.13) .P. Nos.15 & 17) ate (O.P. No.16) ate (O.P. No.23) ate (O.P. No.24) ate (O.P. No.25) ate (O.P. No.26) THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH CORAM: Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. 2. Heard learn rd learned counsel for the Parties. By means means of this application, the Petitioner, oner, New India Assurance Compan ompany Ltd., is seeking a direction for inves r investigation by the Crime Branch ranch or any other specialised agency into p into proceedings CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 1 of 12 initiated under th der the Employees Compensation Act, 19 ct, 1923, which, according to the Pe the Petitioner, involve fraudulent practices i ctices in collusion with private parti parties, vehicle owners, medical practiti ractitioners, and others. The Petit Petitioner has also prayed for quashi quashing of the proceedings in th in the said EC cases pending before t fore the learned Commissioner for er for Employee’s Compensation at Bhubane hubaneswar. 3. The backg
Legal Reasoning
background facts of the case are that, the Pe the Petitioner is a public sector unde r undertaking operating as an insurance co ce company and engaged in provid providing coverage under motor accident c dent claims, inter alia. The grievanc evance of the Petitioner arises from a serie a series of claims adjudicated or p or pending adjudication before the Co e Court of the Commissioner for er for Employee’s Compensation at Bhuba Bhubaneswar, in which compensati ensation has been awarded or claimed in ed in respect of certain alleged roa ed road traffic accidents. The Petitioner alleg er alleges that the claimants, in collu n collusion with vehicle owners and with with the help of manipulated medi medical documents and tampered case rec ase records, have fraudulently secu secured or attempted to secure com e compensation. According to the P o the Petitioner, several such EC cases, speci specifically, EC Nos. 144/2014, 14 14, 145/2014, 76/2015, 231/2015, 149/2015 9/2015, 10/2013, 11/2013, 342/2014 2/2014, 352/2014, 353/2014, 202/2013, 213 3, 213/2013 and 220/2015, demon demonstrate a common modus operandi erandi involving delayed FIRs, fals s, false injury documentation, improper res per restoration of withdrawn cases, ases, and suppression of notice to the insu e insurer, among others. It is further further contended that despite prior direction rections issued in governmental circu al circulars aimed at preventing fake claims, laims, no tangible action has been ta een taken, compelling the Petitioner to ap to approach this Court. CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 2 of 12 4.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Pami Pami Rath, Senior Advocate appearin pearing for the Petitioner submits bmits that the present petition has been filed n filed in light of grave irregularitie ularities committed in a number of co of compensation proceedings unde under the Employees Compensation A tion Act, where fraudulent claims laims have allegedly been entertained. Fi ed. Firstly, it is submitted that the at the disability certificates relied upon in se n in several of the EC cases were issu re issued by private medical practitioners wh ers who were not authorised certifyi ertifying authorities under Section 57 of th of the Rights of Persons with Disa h Disabilities Act, 2016. These doctors lacke s lacked requisite n specialisation and an statutory competency, rendering render their assessments of di of disability and earning capacity wholly holly unreliable. Secondly, it is argu is argued that the learned Commissioner for er for Employees Compensation ma on maintained blank dates and manipulate ipulated the case records, particular ticularly in relation to the registration of ion of cases and listing dates, rais s, raising serious questions on the integr integrity of the proceedings. Third . Thirdly, learned counsel submits that after t after the claims were withdrawn du awn during the period of vigilance scrutiny, utiny, the learned Commissioner, wi er, without jurisdiction, took up the very very same cases after several years l years and recalled the earlier dismissal ord orders without notice to the Pet e Petitioner–Insurance Company. This, it his, it is urged, amounts to an imp an impermissible review of quasi-judicial or icial orders in the absence of statuto statutory power and procedural safeguards guards. On these grounds, the Petiti Petitioner seeks an investigation by the Cri the Crime Branch or CBI to unearth earth the larger conspiracy and protect publ t public funds. In support of the p the prayer, learned counsel places relian reliance on the judgments of the H f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Safig Ahma hmad v. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd Ltd., (2021) 9 SCR 560 and Gohar Mo Mohammed v. UPSRTC, (2023) 023) 4 SCC 381, as well as the decision of sion of this Court CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 3 of 12 in CRLMP Nos. os. 2599 of 2022 and 26 of 2023, wher , wherein serious fraud in compensa pensation claims led to a direction for inves r investigation by the CBI. 5. Mr. Durga Durga Prasad Nanda, learned Senior Counse ounsel appearing for Opposite Part e Party No. 21, submits that the present resent petition is wholly misconcei conceived and liable to be dismissed in d in limine. He contended that the hat the Petitioner, after having participated pated fully in the proceedings before before the Commissioner for Employees Co es Compensation and even having aving pursued statutory remedies by filing filing appeals, is now seeking to reo to reopen concluded matters through indirec indirect means. It is further submitte bmitted that four of the appeals filed by the by the Petitioner have already been
Decision
been disposed of by this Court on 23.02.20 .02.2024 with the consent of the P the Petitioner, thereby indicating that that no serious objection was ra as raised during the pendency of tho f those appeals regarding any alle ny alleged fraud. Mr. Nanda further subm submits that the allegations raised raised in the present petition have alr e already been examined by the y the Crime Branch authorities, who, who, upon due verification, did no did not find any illegality warranting further further action. No FIRs or complaints plaints alleging fraud were filed by the Petit e Petitioner at the appropriate time time during the trial proceedings, and the nd these belated allegations appear ppear to be a tactic to evade the awarded l rded liability. He emphasised that th that the Petitioner has failed to present an ent any concrete evidence to substa substantiate the claims of fraud, and the pres e present petition is based on mere a mere assumptions and sweeping accusations sations, including against quasi-judic judicial authorities. Placing reliance on th on the decisions of the Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Raje Rajendran vs. Superintendent of nt of Police, CBCID (2013) 12 SCC 48 C 480, and the CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 4 of 12 Delhi High Court Court in Renuka Kulkarni & Ors. vs. State tate, 2025 SCC Online Del 764, i , it was submitted that transfer of inve f investigation to another agency wit cy without compelling reasons undermines i ines institutional integrity. 6. Mrs. S. Mo . S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, s tate, submits that the present petitio petition is devoid of merit and does not w not warrant any direction for inve r investigation by the Crime Branch or ch or any other specialised agency gency. It is contended that the allegations ra ions raised by the Petitioner have al ave already been enquired into by the C the CID, Crime Branch upon rece n receipt of a petition from the Petitione titioner itself. In course of that enqu at enquiry, relevant case records were requis requisitioned and personally verified erified by the officers of the CID in the of the office of the Commissioner for er for Employees Compensation, and it was it was found that the proceedings ings were conducted in accordance with e with law, the evidence of witn f witnesses had been recorded, and the d the Insurance Company had act ad actively participated, including cross- -examination and document fili nt filing. She further contended that no i t no illegality or fraud was establis stablished in the said enquiry, and that many t many of the EC cases cited are alre re already the subject of adjudication in app in appeal or have been disposed of b ed of by orders of this Court, and therefore, refore, the prayer for a fresh inves investigation is wholly unwarranted and d and based on pprehensions. unfounded apprehe 7. Upon a n a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings, the submissions, and , and materials placed on record, as regar regards the first issue, the Petitio Petitioner company, has alleged a system systematic fraud involving several veral claimants, vehicle owners, private d vate doctors, and the quasi-judicial dicial authority, in furtherance of which f hich false claims were processed ssed and compensation obtained. The The Petitioner CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 5 of 12 specifically allege alleges that disability certificates were issu re issued by non- specialist private rivate doctors without proper authorisatio risation, thereby violating the prov e provisions of the Rights of Persons with with Disabilities Act, 2016. While While this submission prima facie raises c aises concerns of irregularity, it mus it must be noted that such factual assertion ertions regarding the legitimacy of cy of medical certification require proper roper evidentiary adjudication and e and expert scrutiny. Pursuant to a petition su tion submitted by the Deputy Genera General Manager of the Petitioner–Insurance urance Company, an enquiry was co as conducted by the CID, Crime Branch, O anch, Odisha into the alleged fraudu fraudulent claims in various compensation p tion proceedings. The CID issued r sued requisitions to the Commissioner for er for Employees Compensation, Bh on, Bhubaneswar, and undertook personal in onal inspection of case records. Upo . Upon verification, it was found, vide Ann e Annexure-B/5, that all case record records, including depositions, documentar entary evidence, and cross-examin xaminations by the Insurance Company, pany, were duly available and ha nd had been acted upon by the Com Commissioner. Furthermore, the r , the report confirmed that several of the EC he EC cases cited had either been dr een dropped, were unrelated, or had already lready resulted in payments made p ade pursuant to orders of the this Cou Court in FAO proceedings. Sign . Significantly, the report concluded that m that many of the EC claim matters atters were sub judice in appeal or had al had already been adjudicated, and and as such, no further criminal investi nvestigation was undertaken. 8. Furthermo hermore, the Petitioner has alleged that t that the learned Commissioner ma er manipulated the order sheets by insertin nserting blank or inconsistent dates, dates, thereby casting doubt on the procedu rocedural sanctity of the proceedings edings. However, this allegation does not f not find support CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 6 of 12 from the records. cords. A perusal of the order sheets anne s annexed to the petition reveals tha als that both parties were recorded as being being present on all relevant dates. dates. Therefore, the ground of procedural m al manipulation through blank dat nk dates remains unsubstantiated. It is a w is a well-settled principle that alleg t allegations of fraud against a judicial or qu l or quasi-judicial forum must be s t be supported by clear, cogent, and un nd unambiguous material, which is ich is conspicuously absent in this case. 9. The third third limb of challenge pertains to the to the recall of withdrawal order orders by the Commissioner after sev r several years, allegedly without ithout jurisdiction and without notice to the to the Petitioner. While the jurisdic risdiction of the Commissioner to review o view or recall his orders is indeed li eed limited and circumscribed by statutory tutory provisions, any grievance reg ce regarding such an act is to be raised aised in a direct challenge to the im the impugned orders or pursued through th ugh the appellate remedies provided vided under law. 10. Additional itionally, the counter affidavit filed by the St the State and the Crime Branch au ch authorities indicates that an enquiry nquiry into the allegations was i was indeed conducted, and no material terial was found warranting furthe further action. The same has not been been specifically rebutted by the P the Petitioner. In light of these facts, inv ts, invocation of y extraordinary jurisdiction for directing a fresh o jur esh or parallel investigation by sp by specialised agencies, without any clear clear instance of bias, dereliction, tion, or illegality by the existing authorit uthorities, is not justified. Courts h urts have consistently held that the power power to transfer investigation to a to a specialised agency like the CBI CBI should be exercised sparingl aringly and only in exceptional circumstan mstances, where CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 7 of 12 there is failure of j re of justice or institutional bias, which is no h is not evident in the present case. 11. The Hon’ Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter atter of Royden Harold Buthello & llo & Anr Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Or & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw ( Law (SC) 154, has reiterated as below – limitations on of the exercise of appropriate est Bengal Democratic 1 wherein it aving noted this aspect of the matter it is appro 17. Having er to the decision in the case of State of West B to refer to th rs. vs. Committee for Protection of Demo & Ors. vs s, West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571 wher Rights, Wes d as hereunder:- is held as he it necessary 0. Before parting with the case, we deem it nece “70. Befo onferred by emphasise that despite wide powers conferre to empha hile passing ticles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while pa Articles certain self- any orde y order, the Courts must bear in mind certain these posed imposed f the power nstitutional powers. The very plenitude of the p constituti ution in its der the said articles requires great caution under th a direction ercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a dire exercise. concerned, CBI to conduct investigation in a case is conce to CBI to id down to hough no inflexible guidelines can be laid dow although e exercised cide whether or not such power should be exer decide w hat such an t time and again it has been reiterated that su but time routine or er is not to be passed as a matter of routi order is allegations rely because a party has levelled some allega merely b power must ainst the local police. This extraordinary power against th exceptional exercised sparingly, cautiously and in excep be exerc to provide uations where it becomes necessary to pr situations tigations or dibility and instil confidence in investigatio credibilit nternational ere the incident may have national and interna where th e necessary ifications or where such an order may be nece ramificat orcing the doing complete justice and enforcing for doin be flooded damental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flo fundame ith limited th a large number of cases and with li with a investigate ources, may find it difficult to properly inves resources s credibility en serious cases and in the process lose its credi even seri d purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” and purp Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasth ajasthan & Also Mithi nder: 2015) 9 SCC 795 wherein it is held hereunder: Ors. (2015) its exercise 2. Even so the availability of power and its exe “12. Eve not direct two distinct matters. This Court does not are two CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 8 of 12 ing nor is indicate the igation. The uld not be hether the emand such en or can ation to all on its own ourt while fer remains not ordered stigator to a reasonable m because Court may owers. The heir next of ns. After all cy does not arily, much ssion of the r is ordered ependent of mon place of some rty seeking s itself rests m such or t unless the for transfer, ensure that ansfer is the re than any the ultimate do it better transfer transfer d prestige o decision ordered facts and an order possibly cases. Ea facts. W exercisin sensitive just beca given co apprehen of shabb step in sensibilit kin is no transfer o imply tha less false crime. T to an ou influence when S significan transfer i on the i similar o Court se the same the truth perceived other con purpose than an a 13. Havi this Cou the powe this Cou when the officers o State of nsfer of investigation just for the asking n nsfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindica stige of a party interested in such investigation cision whether transfer should or should no ered rests on the Court's satisfaction whethe ts and circumstances of a given case demand order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or ssibly be prescribed for universal application ses. Each case will obviously depend upon its ts. What is important is that the Court ercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer rem sitive to the principle that transfers are not or t because a party seeks to lead the investigato en conclusion. It is only when there is a reaso prehension about justice becoming a victim be shabby or partisan investigation that the Court p in and exercise its extraordinary powers. sibility of the victims of the crime or their ne is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. Aft nsfer of investigation to an outside agency doe ply that the transferee agency will necessarily, s falsely implicate anyone in the commission o me. That is particularly so when transfer is or an outside agency perceived to be independe ences, pressures and pulls that are common investigates matters of en State Police nificance. The confidence of the party se nsfer in the outside agency in such cases itself the independence of that agency from suc lar other considerations. It follows that unles urt sees any design behind the prayer for tra same must be seen as an attempt only to ensur truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer rceived independence of the transferee more tha er consideration. Discovery of truth is the ult rpose of any investigation and who can do it n an agency that is independent. . Having said that we need to remind ourselve s Court has, in several diverse situations, exer power of transfer. In Inder Singh v. State of P s Court transferred the investigation to CBI en the investigation was being monitored by s icers of the State Police. So also in R.S. Sod te of U.P. investigation was transferred even rselves that s, exercised te of Punjab CBI even d by senior S. Sodhi v. even when CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 9 of 12 under the n Inspector nment had of Inquiry t to enquire er faithfully e same will t the police the killing transfer to ssurance to ves of the ooking into the State supervisi General appointed headed b into the m the police lack cred force inv of severa CBI, obs all those deceased the matte 14. Refer Court in upheld t State Pol even wh investiga officers. Court dir States of to CBI k influentia influence 15. Suffi varied sit the Cour transfer, necessary discovery this Cou the pray suspicion Court to cases, w necessary out a cas the State can be available cause of State Police was doing the needful unde pervision of an officer of the rank of an Insp neral of Police and the State Government pointed a one-member Commission of In aded by a sitting Judge of the High Court to en o the matter. This Court held that however faith police may carry out the investigation the sam k credibility since the allegations against the p ce involved in the encounter resulting in the k several persons were very serious. The transf I, observed this Court, “would give reassuran those concerned including the relatives o ceased that an independent agency was looking matter”. . Reference may also be made to the decision o urt in State of Punjab v. CBI wherein this held the order transferring investigation from te Police to CBI in connection with a sex sc en when the High Court had commended estigation conducted by the DIG and his tea icers. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India urt directed transfer of the Chit Fund Scam i tes of West Bengal and Orissa from the State P CBI keeping in view the involvement of se luential persons holding high positions of powe luence or political clout. Suffice it to say that transfers have been order ried situations but while doing so the test appli Court has always been whether a directio nsfer, was keeping in view the nature of allega cessary with a view to making the proce covery of truth credible. What is important is s Court has rarely, if ever, viewed at the thre prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI spicion. There is no reluctance on the part o urt to grant relief to the victims or their famil ses, where intervention is called for, nor cessary for the petitioner seeking a transfer to t a cast-iron case of abuse or neglect on the p State Police, before ordering a transfer. Tra n be ordered once the Court is satisfied on ailable material that such a course will promot use of justice, in a given case.” ordered in t applied by irection for allegations, process of rtant is that e threshold CBI with part of the families in nor is it fer to make the part of er. Transfer ied on the romote the ision of this this Court n from the sex scandal ended the his team of India, this cam in the State Police of several f power and CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 10 of 12 18. Hence guideline or to transfer t is to be u circumstanc and circums other optio intervention specialized o inflexible ence it is clear that though there is no infle , the power line or a straightjacket formula laid down, the p ry power. It nsfer the investigation is an extraordinary pow exceptional be used very sparingly and in an excep g the facts mstance where the Court on appreciating the t there is no ircumstance arrives at the conclusion that there ithout the trial without option of securing a fair such other ention and investigation by the CBI or such expertise. alized investigating agency which has the exper 12. In continua ntinuation of the above laid principles, it is s, it is apposite to mention that while t while the power to transfer investigation to tion to the CBI or another independe ependent agency exists, it must be exercis xercised only in compelling circu circumstances and not merely on on vague or unsubstantiated all ted allegations. The Hon’ble Apex Court ha has cautioned that such direction rections should not be issued as a matter of ter of course, and that the satisfactio sfaction of the Court must rest upon concre concrete material indicating that the hat the investigation conducted by the loca e local police is either biased, perf d, perfunctory, or deliberately designed to ed to shield the accused. The Cour e Court also noted that the extraordinary na ary nature of this jurisdiction under under Article 226 must be preserved by a ju y a judicious and careful approach, oach, ensuring that the investigating agenc agencies are not undermined solely lely based on the dissatisfaction of one par ne party with the outcome of proc proceedings. The decision reinforces rces the settled principle that the at the transfer of investigation is not a su t a substitute for ordinary legal rem al remedies, and must be ordered only to a ly to advance the cause of justice w stice where the facts demonstrate that it is t it is absolutely do so. necessary to do so. 13. In view of iew of the foregoing discussion and analysis alysis, this Court is of the considere nsidered opinion that the Petitioner has fail as failed to make out a case for dire or directing investigation by the Crime Bran e Branch, CBI or any Special Inves Investigation Team. The allegations raised raised are either CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 11 of 12 speculative, remed remedial in nature, or already addressed essed within the statutory ramework framew arly, through appeals. Similarly, the other allegations, while while grave in form, lack evidentiary supp support and are made at a bela belated stage, seemingly to reopen open concluded proceedings. According ordingly, the CRLMP stands dismissed being d being devoid of (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge 14. merit. Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Jul-2025 10:44:34 CRLMP No. 749 of 2 of 2024 Page 12 of 12