IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46591 of 2009 Anil Kumar Sekhri, son of Late S.D. Sekhri, Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, The United India Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Chanakya Commercial Complex, ‘R’ Block, patna, residing at Transit Camp, Boring Canal Road, Patna – petitioner. With Cr. Misc. No. 46578 of 2009 Braham Prakash Saran, son of Late Dr. Guru Sharan Singh, Divisional Manager, D.O.-2, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Brindavan Kunj, Exhibition Road, Patna, resident of Jail Road, Ara – petitioner. With Cr. Misc. No. 46592 of 2009 Ashok Kumar, son of Late Saryug Thakur, Branch Manager, Hajipur Branch, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ramashish Chowk, PS Sadar Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali, resident of village Lachrampur, PS Kalyanpur, District Samastipur – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Officer Incharge, Hajipur Sadar P.S., Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali. 3. Rajendra Prasad Rai, son of Late Vilash Rai, Mohalla Bagdulhan, Madai Road, PS Town (Hajipur), Dist. Vaishali – opp. parties in all the cases. … For the petitioners in all the cases : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For opp. party no.3 : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocates. 3 16.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. These applications have been filed for quashing the FIR of Hajipur Sadar PS Case No. 455/2009, dated 5.12.2009 for the offences under sections 420, 406, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 120B of the Penal Code. Petitioner Anil Kumar Sekhri is the Regional Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited at Patna, petitioner Braham Prakash Saran is the Divisional Manager of the United India Insurance Company at Patna, whereas petitioner Ashok Kumar is the Branch Manager, Hajipur branch of the said company. Opposite party no.3 had taken an insurance claim against an accident policy in the year 1992. His policy was renewed year to year and in the policy that have been annexed in the counter 2 affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant it appears that all the policies were under Table 3 of the Insurance Act. On 25.6.2005 the complainant instituted an FIR in which he has said that his wife and daughter beat him up, kept him confined in a room and threw him from the roof. As a result of the said incident, opposite party no.3 is said to have suffered certain injuries. Opposite party no.3 thereafter applied for the insurance claim vide Annexure 4 in which he has stated that “fell from Ist floor of the house and sustained compound right leg fracture”. On the basis of the said application the company asked opposite party no. 3 to submit his medical bill in the original form. Opposite party no.3 failed to submit his bill in the original form and as such the matter was closed. The opposite party thereafter filed an application before the Chief Regional Manager of the Company and made a prayer that his matter should be reopened and he should be given the insurance claim. Taking a lenient view and giving him the benefit of doubt, the matter was reopened and the opposite party no.3 was asked to submit his document in original form. Opposite party thereupon submitted his documents and was granted Rs. 1.50 lacs under Table 3 of the policy as insurance claim as it was found that he had suffered 40% disability due to the injury. The allegation against the petitioners that they have not paid the correct amount and have made interpolations in the policy and written Table 3 in place of Table 4. Opposite party no.3 refused to accept the policy amount and is now claiming Rs. 10,73,620/- which 3 is inclusive of the interest and has filed the present complaint case under sections 420, 406, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 120B of the Penal Code. At the out set I would like to refer to the policies annexed by opposite party no.3 in which it has been mentioned that the insurance has been taken under Table 3 and as such prima facie it appears that the allegations that the petitioners had forged the documents and made over writing over the documents is untrue and no case can be made out under sections 467 and 468 of the Penal Code. With respect to section 420 of the Penal Code, the opposite party should at least prima facie show that there was an intention to cheat opposite party no.3 and induce him to deliver some property or valuable security. In this case the policy was first prepared in 1992 and since then till the time the application was filed, opposite party had never made any objection with respect to any parts of the policy. Had there been any interpolation in the policy, then it should have been pointed out at that time and not now after making the insurance claim. This court also does not feel inclined to believe opposite party no.3 in view of Annexure 3 which is the FIR lodged by him against his wife and son claiming that they have threw him from the roof which resulted in the injury, for which he is claiming insurance amount. Similarly this court does not find that any offence of criminal breach of trust is made out from plain reading of the complaint petition and in the facts of this case. The court is relying on 4 the insurance policy which have been annexed by opposite party no.3 and he cannot thereafter be heard to say that this court could not have looked into the documents for the purpose of interfering in this matter. This court on a plain reading of the FIR and the facts of the case finds that no case whatsoever is made out under the alleged sections i.e. 420, 406, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 120B of the Penal Code. Accordingly the impugned FIR is hereby quashed and these applications are allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)