ww IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CRlMpmAo- PETITIONERS: VERSUS RESPONDENT: $ing§a §3ezm£1 02 /2006 1. Jagmohan Gairola, Son of LaTe Shri GD. 6airolu, Divisional Manager, The Orien’ral Insurance Company LTd., Bilaspur, aged about 52 year's. 2. Pinaki Shri Mallicl Administrafive Mallic, son of Mahendra Kumar ;Ass.mg Officer, The Orienfal Insurance Company , Bilaspur, LTd. aged abouf 45 years. Surendra Kumar of Shri Agarwal, aged abouf 48 years, Agarwal, son Hanuman‘Hal ' Senior Assisfanf y.» . . . QFF . e 'I The Company , Bilaspur, resident of Ashish Villa, Opposite JanTa No.50, Nehru Bilaspur (6.6.) ‘PETITION UNDER $ECTION 4826F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 Orien’ral Insurance Lfd. Quarfer Nagar, EQH GOUkT QF GHHATTIARH AT $ILA5W 5ing3g Bench : Hgn'bEg Mr. Justécg Pri?mker mmkar QRMP. Nggg Qf $136 PETITlQNEks - Jagmohan (5aimia {Kg mama!“ Versus §grgndra Kamcir' Agmwai 5hr§ Abh3shek Sinha, counsecl far Tha pziifmnar’s. Shré HQ Aamwai $en‘mr' Counsei wh‘h 5hr‘i A$h0k 5war'mkar‘ coume: To, fhe resnamam ETITION UNDER SECTI$N 482 OF THE 60%E OF CR1M£NAL PQOé‘EE‘wut QRDH& " ~ {Qamzom} K ?resem‘ pafé’rian filcgd undgr $9.:cf‘yon 452 gf ima Cadg 0f Thg Criminal E’mcgéum i3 fur quashment 5f The impugngd. wégr dated 114§Zf3Q6 whamby in a. camigiam? casa, affamg under Sagfrign 509 mgd with Sectien 34 9f 1helndi<m ?anq! Cadg hqz$ been registered aggirgsf Thg pgfifimem Peti?ianer‘s hava further prayed fer qmshmem‘ af The, anfir‘e pmmedings m respect of Thg Criminal fiasa Na, 639/ZQQ6 pending bafore the. 3eamgd Chizf Judigim Mggis?m*rg, First Ciggs, Buagpun RESPONDENT 2‘ Brief film‘s Qf I‘ha casg am thm‘ cm $4,1232QQ5 vide Annexure P-6 a compEain? salsa was filad by respandvam 5urendm Kumar Agmwal againsf The patifimers undgr Seg’rign 2G0 0f fhe (fade 0f €r§mimi Pracedufg qifeg§ng in. it? Thai? he. isf‘ working as Samar Assismm Officer in *rha Orianmi lnsumnsek ‘ Campany and his rgiqfiens with 1mg non—appiicgn? Na: 1 (pefifiongr Ng. i harain) gm net cgrdial; I? i5 aiieged mm we k SmT. Madrhu Agmwgl whfg 0f The compiainanf is The awmgr cf R Indica Car bearing regis‘im‘iian Na, 5.6.10 BIS. 9150 which was H 5$ R \ r duiy insured with me Origami Insurance Campany where complainant and The. pmssgm peTi‘rigners are wgrking‘ if is ajsg alieggd that (m 1?,5;ZOQ5 ‘rhe said gar beignging m Sm?‘ Madhu ‘ ‘ \ ‘ Agmwgi met with an accident, ané. Thgrgféra, a ciqém 0:153 was \ ‘ puffcr'fh before The Orienmi Insumnca Campany whic?x howevsr' has been rajgcied an 18,10,2995 vide Annaxura P-4n According To Tha compmincm, whiie mjgc‘ring fhe cimm of his wife SmT. Madhu figmwai defgma‘i’ary ianguciga has been uged c; in Thg rgjggfign getter gland. l34QZQQ5 whigh has bgen signed by ’4‘ pfefi'i'ioner' No. Z Pinaki Maiiiac and, this, petitiener-s have committed anoffence under Sec‘ricon 500 af ihe Indian Penai ‘£ Code. 3. In supper? of ifs ease, siafemen’ts of campiainam’ Serendm Kumcf Agrawei and his wife Sm’r, Madhu Agmwei were recorded by ihe cguri below on 8.2;ZQQé 8; 8,3. ZOO6 respectively, and ihereef?er en 17.42006: after inking cognizance of the case, nm‘iees have been issued 1‘0 The peiiiioners. 4. Counsel for The petiticners submits Thg’r The cemplaim cri The instance 0f present campininnm Sllé; Agrawai is net maintainable because admi’r'iedly The le'i'ler dafed 18.102005 was addressed 1‘0 Sm?” Madhu Agrawai and n01 To The, respandenf herein; Moreover, fhe vehicle was insured in The 1 name of Smi. Madhu Agrawai and the leii’er daTed 18.10.2Q05 was aiso sen'i i0 her by regisiered pas? and copy of The same has nof been endorsed ar farwarded fa anyone else. He ‘submifs ’rha'i as due procedure as prescribed under Seciion. 199 of The Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed, 1 ihe compiainiai the behesl of fhe preseni complainant is no? mainfainable. He fur‘l’her‘ subm’i‘is fha‘i even if 'H'Ie en'irire complaint is Taken as it is, There is no aiiegmion whatseever' against thg paTiTioner- No. 1, and the pe’ri‘ricner No. 2 has been arrayed as amused only on The gmunci That he. had signed ”the Ieh‘er’ dated 18,102005 on behah‘ of Tho Divisional Manager. He furiher submits the? from Tho bare reading of fha complaint and fhg iefi'er' dafed 18.10.2905, if is appamnf thaw? no case of defamaiion To The compiainanT whm‘soever‘ has been made OUT. IT has been argued ThaT There is aiso no publicaTion of ieTTer daTed 18.102005 and ThaT was merely an inTernai comamfunicaTion To SmT. Madhu Agrawai informing her The ground on which her claim has been rejecTed by The OrienTai § Insurance Company. He furTher submiTs ThaT The presenT complainT case has been filed ouT of personal vendeTTa as is evidenT from The paragraph No. 1 of The same in which iT has been caTegoricaily sTaTed by complainanT Surendra Kumar Agrawal ThaT The relaTions beTween him and The peTiTioner No. 1, who are working in The same company, are noT cordial. He furTher submiTs ThaT almosT similar avermen‘rs have been made by Shri 5.K. Agrawal in his sTaTemenT before The courT on 8.2.2006. He furTher submiTs ThaT in The IeTTer daTed 18.10.2005 while rejecting The ciaim of SmT. Madhu Agrawai various reasons have been assigned by The Insurance Company such as ThaT The vehicle in quesTion was regisTered for The ‘ privaTe use whereas aT The Time of ineidenT The some was being used as Taxi and, Therefore, There is vioiaTion of Insuranoe Policy. He furTher submiTs ThaT leTTer furTher sTaTes ThaT knowing fuliy Well abouT The condiTion of The insurance policy, a l false ciaim was puTforTh before The Insurance Company on The basis of inoorreof facTs and afTer inTerpolaTion of'cer‘iaini documenTs The same was duly cerTified by The SuperinTendenT‘ l l i of Police, Jqnjgir and, Therefore, by m s‘H‘ei’ch of imaginmian, cements of The Ia‘Her can be. fer-med as faise impumfian 0r defamafor‘y in na'mm. He furfhar submifs Than? rejecfian 0f The claim of Smt Madhu Agmwai was assaiied by hem befgr‘e The District ConsLJmgr' Dispute Redressai FQrum which has been dismissed vide order dated 1540,2008 (Annexur'e A—l). He submiw Thu’r The order- of ‘the Districf Forum is subjected fo choilenge by Sm’r. Madhu Agrawal before The sm’re Consumer Dispme Redrgsscz! Farum and Thg same is pending, In support of his submisision, r'ehcmce is placed on The foiiowing decisions of The Supreme Court $ (1) (2002)1 SCC r241, aT page 252 (SW. PaianiTkar' Vs: STaTe of Bihar) (Z019) 1 SCC 32Z (Porminder Kour Vs. SToTe of UTTar- Pradesh 8g oTher‘s) (3) (2009) 14 SCC 466, QT page 471 (Shokson BeiThissor v. STafe of Kemio) (4) (2003) 4 SCC 675, QT page 681 (3.5. Joshi v.5Tcd’e of Haryana) w: NIN ~J (5) (2009) Z SCC 370, aT page 376 (Dhariwoi Tobacco ProducTs LTd. v. $ToTe of MohomshTr‘o) (6) (1969) 1 SCC 37, oT page 39 (MC. Verghese v. TJ: Poonam) (7) Am 1.969 Ailahabgd 423 (Hardevi Magkani v1 5mm T of UP.) 5. On The oTher' hand supporTing The impugned Judgmem‘ , end The enTir'e proceedings, iT has been argued by counsel forl The respondenT ThaT The learned MogisfmTe is fully jusTified in Taking cognizance of The leTTer and issuing process ogainsT The; peTiTioners. He submiTs ThoT respondenT Surendm Kumor" ‘ Agmwql being husband. cf Sm'sf, Madhu Agrawai is fuiiy compgtenf To lodge a csmplainf case againsf The peti'rianars firs’rly on fha gmund tho?! ha is husband 9f Smt Madhu Agmwal and secondiy ma? ‘rhxz fenor' of The ief‘rer dcri'ed 18c1DL2005 is as §uch which makes allggcd‘ions against me pefifioner‘s aka, He submifs thaf in paragraph 3 of The 3am!" da‘red 18.10.2005 if has been cafegoricaily men‘rioned fhcrr knowing fuHy wel! abouf‘jhz procedure of The Insumnce Company, on The basis of incorrecT facTs, a fraud hos been played wiTh The Insurance Company and, Therefore, infacT The ollegcmons are ogoms’r The peTmoners aiso He fur‘Ther' submrrs ThoT m View of $TaTe of Hawano o: others Vs Bhojonm! & others reporTed in 1992 (supp.) 1 5C6 335, This Cour'T can noT inTerfer'e in o case where The process hos been issued againsT The peTiTioners in accordance wiTh‘ low. 6. I have heard counsel for The parTies and perused The maTeriai available on record. 7. UndispuTed facTs of The case are ThaT SmT. Modhu Agrawal, wife of The complainanT had submiTTed a claim case before The OrienTai’ Insurance Company requesTing ThaT her Indica Car has meT wiTh an accidenT and, Therefore, she is enTiTled for a ToTal sum of Rs.3,49,746/- as menTioned in The Claim Form Annexure P-1. IT is furTher noT dispuTed ThaT The said claim of SmT, Modhu Agrawol was rejecTed by The OrienTal Insurance Company vide leTTer daTed 18.10.2005 (Annexure P—4). IT is also noT dispuTed ThaT The leTTer daTed 18402005 was senT To SmT. Madhu Agrawal by regisTered posT and copy of The‘same was noT endorsed or forwarded To anyone else. "« .‘ (355, l (£ ‘ 8‘ Now, thg core. quasw‘ian fer cgnsider'mian bafor'e This Cour? is whe’rhar Thg communica‘ticn of the betmr dated 18.10.2005 cons‘fr'uzd an offence under Secfig'n 499 0f ”me Indian Pena! Code or‘ not Before furfher' d§scussing Thg faci's and law, it is dgsimbée Ta see Thg cQnmnm cf the ietmr dme‘d‘ 18.102005, franskx’ted versian 0f which reads as under :- To, _ ‘ Dmed 1&102005 Sm’r; Madhu Agrawal, *~ f W/o $hr‘i 5K. Agrawal, Ashish Viiia! Oppasiw E.W.S. 50, Nehru Nagar', g Biiaspurn (6.6.) Madam, Subjem‘ : Yeur‘ Moira!“ Ciaim No. 31/2006/00100 Vehicie No‘ C5. 10 B‘C. 9150 bdre of accidem 1775/2005 Palicy No. 31/2005/O?940 Wifh respem‘ m subject cued abovg‘ wa am Tc infarm you Tha'r your under menfioned' ciaim for damages To vehicle is rejec’red by fhe compei‘enf officer on The foliowing grounds. That The vohiclg was insured for privo’ro: use, but m Tho fime of accidenf +he veh§cie was no? keing used for privm‘e purpose, bu? if was being used as ‘rTcxxi for hire. If is found Tha‘r you have Confravened‘ fhe poiicy condifions, general excep?ions 3 (a), “Limim'fions as +0 use." That yoL ore wn‘e of 5hr! S K Agrawo! Senior Assmmnt Omen'ra! insurance Comoany The ciolm flied by vou and slaned‘ on 245 e005 and produc d m fhe o1’flce of ”(he company In‘ The Cian'n n‘ was under +aKen and agreed by you fhaT n' any‘ false or frauciu§en+ Informafion 15 given regaramg accndenf or any informafion is suppressed, Then poiioy would he rendered} invalid. All righ’rs of recovery halopened and fuiure claims would l be seized. In the claim filed on 4.5.2005, you furnished false informai'ion’ regarding use of vehicie and suppress fhe facfs. No‘i only This, even offer being weii aware of ihe proeedure of 4 ’ % insurance company, made afferd ‘ro gm‘ fhe claim on. incarract informa’rion/‘gr‘ound‘ and deceitfui ground. That in The enquiry, fhe insurance company found fhe information furnished by you regarding use of vehicie and dacumem‘s (Police siuiemeni’ of Ajay Cim‘ii’erjee) fugnished in respect of claim fa be foise. Vou did no? fiie ine ciaim wii'h ihe insurance Company with clean hand Tom! informmion woe not? provided but for oblique reason in correct and deceiifui informofion and inierpoia’l'ed documen‘i' were produceo fo gei' i'he claim, mode ill afiempi io ge‘i ihe claim. Even graiifica’rion is offered To ge? a repori in “favour, when The reiaiions of insurance Company and insurance holder are based on. exireme good faith. "*‘~' That during enquiry, The police sfa‘iemenf of Shri Ajay Chai‘ier‘jee, who produced in ihe court was found fampered and in 'ihis regard, even The SP. Janjgir has made alcommem‘ and ih This regard, proper enquiry and legal proceedings are in progress. i Therefore, on accouni of aforemen‘iioned reasons, your claim is mjeoted by the com peieni officer. K Please acknowledge receipt. Thanks Regards 5d/- Divisional Manager Let’rer makes ii very clear Thai the some is no’rhing but communication To SmT. Madhu Agrawal inTimaTing her ThoT afTer examinaTion, her claim has noT been found genuine and as cerTain incorrecT informa‘iion has been given by her, The some connoT be accepTed. IT furTher reflecTe Tha’r an aTTempT hos been made by The said claimanf To deceitfuliy receive The claim by giving false informaTion, The leTTer also reflecTs ThaT The same is based on cerTain documenTs in parTicular The sTaTemenT of one Ajay ChaTTerjee who was Traveling in The vehicle oT The Time of accident LeTTer is also based on The repor'!‘ of '\ (e i Supgrin’tgnden‘r ef Poiice, Janjgir—Champg in’rimg‘ring The. depar‘fmem‘ abouf fha inmr'palmion in The case diary sm’remen’r of Ajay Chafferjee. if Annexur‘e P—3 wh§¢h is a leh‘er of fhe Superimendant of Pa§ice, JanJg§r-Champa is ”taken in’ro cansiderm‘ien Then h‘ becomes fumher clear Thai lef‘rer' dated 18.102005 of The Oriental Insuranse Ccmpany and The Effer- (Annexur‘e 9—3) of The Superintendent of Police, Janjgir‘ Champa are based on same facts. This court is nut a, deciding the validity at the rejection cf the claim cf Smt. Madhu Agrawai because far that the separate proceedings S have been drawn by her and which are still reported to have been pending befare the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Tencr at this letter does not show in any manner that any defamatory language has been used in the some. Moreover, even for the sake of argument it is aecepted that defamatory words have been mentioned in the letter but again admitted position is that this letter has been addressed to Smt, Madhu Agrawal and has been sent to her by registered post and further the copy of this ietter has not been endorsed or forwarded to anyone else. It is settled legal position that unless such defamatbry letter, if any, is circulated or» may be published, the same will not construe the offence under: Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for thel petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court inl the matter of Kundeanmal Vs. Emperor reported in AIR 1943i Sindh 196 in which it has been held that :- “Publication of defamatory . matter involves communication of it to some other person, other then the person to whom it is addressed” Supreme Cour'r has fur‘rher' heir; than? : “(iatlgy on Libel and Signder' Edam 2, wifrh reference +0 publicafian of defamatory mafTer' in a ief‘rer. A? p 95 if §s said 'f'haf normoiy there is no publica‘fion when a Ieffer confaining defama’ror‘y §mpuwrians §s sem‘ dir‘eci‘ To 1’he perscri defamed" 9. So far es The jurisdiciion of 'ihisCourf under Section 482 of fhe Cade of Criminal Pmcedure is concerned, 'if is settled 'legai position Thaf This (lourt in The {Je’riiion under Section 4‘82 af The Cede of Criminai Procedure. can oiways qliash 'ihe pmoeedings in The cost of abuse of process of low? The S‘upreme’CourT in fhe moiier of SW. Polonifkar v. S’rafe of Bihor (supra) hos heid as under :- “Z3n May a Times, compiaim‘s one fiied under Secfion 200 Cr.P.C. by ihe porfies wiTh on obiique mo’rive or for coiiaier'ai purposes fo "harass, 1‘0 wreck vengeance, i0 pressurize i'he accused To bring oui‘ of breach of conirocf Touching commercial Transactions instead of approaching civil couris wiih o view To realize money of ihe euriies’r. Ii is aiso fo be kep‘i in mind iiim‘ when poriies commii o wrongfui oci eonsi’i’ruiing a criminai offence saiisfying necessary ingredienis of an offence, ihey conno‘i be oiiowed fo walk away with on impression inoi no oc’rion could be Taken ogoinsf Them on The criminoi side, A wrongfui or iiiegoi act such as criminai breach of ‘irusi, misapproprioiion, cheo‘iing or defomoiion may give rise +0 oc’rion boih on civii as weii as on The criminoi side when i‘i is cieor from The comploim‘ and sworn siofemenfs ihoT necessary ingredienfs of consiiiuiing on offence are mode oui. May be pariies are eniii’ied ‘io proceed on civii side oniy in a given sii‘uoiion in ihe absence of an oci cons’ri’rui'ing on offence bui not To proceed ogoinsi' fhe accused in o criminai prosecu‘iion. Hence before issuing a process a Magisira‘re hos $1' V 10 To essgn'ricxliy keep in mind fhe schame conmined in The provisions 0f Secfiows 200—2G3 CrPC keeping in mind fhe posifion of Eaw siafed above and pass an order judiciously and mi mechanicaliy or in a roufine manner. Z7. In the case in hond, we. have already stated above Tho? excepi' ogainsf appeiiom No. 7,. no offence made ou+ againsf The remaining appeiiam‘s as the ingredienis of offences aiieged ogains’: i'he'm were no? soiiofied. Unfor‘i’unafeiy, The High Cour? faiied To éxercioe jurisdiction under? Secfion 482 of fhe Code of Criminai Procedure To correc? monifesi error commi‘ii’ed by ihe iear'ned Mogjsi‘rm‘e in issuing process ogainsi Aopeiionis i I .- n .L _ 4.1.- I..-_J - o ona o Wnen me Cuiegeu aoi’s‘ agoingi f‘nem dio noT constimfe offences for won? of sofiofying The ingredients of the offences. The approach and considerations whiie exercising power and Jurisdiction by a Magistrate at the time of issuinq process are to be in terms of Sections ZOO to 203 under Chapter XV CrPC, having due regard to the position of iaw expiained in various decisions of this Court, and whereas while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PIC. the High Court has to look at the object and purpose for which such power is conferred on it under the said provision. Exercise of inherent power is avaiiabie to the High Court to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This being the position, exercise of power under Section 482 ,Cr.P.C. should be consistent with the scope and ombit of the some in the light of the decisions aforementioned. in appropriate cases, to prevent judiciai process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirabie but necessary also, so that the judiciai forum or court may not be ailowed to be utiiized for any oblique motive. When a person approaches the HighrCourt on the facts and circumstances of a case has .to exercise the powers with circumspection as stated above to reaily serve @ The purpose and object far which They are conferred.‘i 10. The Suprame Ccur'r in The mafter cf Shakson BeH'hissar' v. 5mm of Kemia (supra) has held gs undgr :— “14, T.g 5c9pe and pawgr of quaghing a hrs? informcn‘ian repom‘ and charge-sheaf under Section 482 CrPC is weii seHEed. The said power is eXer'cised by The cour’r 1'0 preven‘f abuse of fhe process of MW and caurf bu? such a pcwer couid be exercised only when The camplcint filed by The compiainanf or' the charge-shee’r fiied by The poiice indid n01" disciose any offence or‘ when fhe said com‘piaim‘ is found i0 be frivoious, vexai'ious or‘ oppressive. A number of decisions have been nendered .by this Cour? an The aforesaid issue wherein The law rela’ring to quashing of a complain? has been succincfiy ioid down." 11. I find no force in the crgumen? of Shri Agrawoi, counsel for The respondenT ThaT in a peTiTion under SecTion 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, This CourT connoT quash The proceedings as iniTiaTed by The courT below, IT appears from The record and from The conTenTs of The complainT ThaT The reason for lodging "The complainT is ThaT The ComplainanT/respondenT Surendra Kumar Agrawal does noT have good relaTions wiTh The peTiTioner No, 1, 12. I furTher find no force in The argumenT of Shri Agrawal, counsel for The respondenT ThaT The respondenT has every righT To file The complainT in The presenT case. AdmiTTedly The leTTer was addressed To SmT. Madhu Agrawal and noThing has been menTioned againsT The respondent IT is only SmT. Madhu Agrawal who could have filed The complainT case, if The respondenTAwas keen To file any such complainT Then The some l l w‘ (<56 should havz been filed affer- following due pmcedure m prgscr'ibed in 5ecf§gn 199 af The CGde 9f Criminal Pm¢edurg. 13. This Cour? is of The considgr‘gd opinian that it is a fit case for quashing The order of issmnce of proce$s and am) the entire proceedings itseif pending against the pefi‘iiener‘s. Accordingly, the peTi’rion i$ aiiawed and The praceedings m respect 9f Criminal case Na. 680/2006 and the crder' dm‘ed 17.4.2006 (Annexur'e P-S) ciF'e hereby quashed. {‘13. ‘Pe‘ri’rion is thus chewed. e~ Sdl- ‘ Pritinker Diwaker Judge