Crl.Misc.No.M-43794 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-43794 of 2007 Date of Decision: 19 - 3 - 2009 Dr. A.K.Shad .....Petitioner v. Amit Jindal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint Annexure P-1 dated 18.1.2006 filed by respondent Amit Jindal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 478, 471, 120-B IPC. The petitioner has also sought quashing of summoning order dated 27.2.2007, Annexure P-2, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar whereby the petitioner was summoned to stand trial under Sections 420, 467, 468, 478, 471 and 120-B IPC. Respondent Amit Jindal in the complaint has alleged that he is registered owner of Tata Indica Car No.HR-20G-8909 and in the year 2001- 2002 he got the insurance done from Oriental Insurance Company and had Crl.Misc.No.M-43794 of 2007 [2] paid a premium of Rs.8,476/-. It was further averred that on 12.6.2004 the car of the complainant met with an accident near Meham. The vehicle was got surveyed and on the asking of the New India Insurance Company, the vehicle was got repaired from the authorised dealer Talmos Automobile, Hisar. The Surveyor appointed by the Company had assessed the total loss of the vehicle as Rs.3,20,000/-. Since vehicle was insured for Rs.2,80,000/-, the car was assessed as total loss. The claim of the complainant was not approved by the Insurance Company and a letter was issued to the complainant that claim is being rejected as he had made a false declaration regarding `No Claim Bonus'. It is stated that complainant was shocked, as at the time the policy was taken, no declaration was given regarding `No Claim Bonus'. It is stated that in order to harm the complainant, a document regarding no claim bonus was forged and fabricated. It was further pleaded that the complainant had signed no document while getting the insurance done on 6.9.2003, therefore, his signatures have been forged by the employees of the Insurance company to repudiate his claim. Amit Jindal complainant appeared as PW-2 when preliminary evidence was recorded by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. He stated that document Ex.P3 - proposal form contains signatures which are neither of the complainant nor of his brother Amrish Jindal. It was submitted that they had not seen the proposal form Ex.P3. However, he further stated that he filed a civil case Ex.P4. Jitender Gandhi, Assistant of the Insurance Company appeared as PW-1. He proved document Ex.P3. Amrish Jindal brother of the complainant also appeared as PW-3. He stated that he had seen the original proposal form and the same do not contain his signatures. PW-4 D.K.Gogia, Senior Assistant, SBI proved the summoned Crl.Misc.No.M-43794 of 2007 [3] record and proved payment of premium to the Insurance Company. He also placed on record signatures of Amit Jindal and Amrish Jindal which were with the Bank for comparison of handwriting expert. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar passed summoning order Annexure P2 and as stated earlier had summoned the accused-petitioner to stand trial. At this stage, it would be pertinent to reproduce the head note of the complaint, in which names of the parties have been mentioned as under:- “Amit Jindal son of Shri Anand Jindal, Resident of 89, Urban Estate- 2, Hisar. ...Complainant Versus 1. Deepak Arora, Development Officer, New India Assurance Company, Red Square Market, Hisar. 2. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company, Red Square Market, Hisar (Name will be added after evidence). 3. Agent/Employee, New India Assurance Company Limited, Red Square Market, Hisar (Name will be added after evidence), who is prepared the forged proposal form. ...Accused” In the present petition filed, it has been submitted that petitioner was not named either as an accused in the complaint or in the summoning order. Petitioner was posted as Divisional Manager of New India Assurance Company, Hisar and at the relevant time he was not posted as Divisional Manager at Hisar. It was stated that petitioner had joined at Hisar only on 27.4.2004 and the Insurance policy is dated 4.9.2003. Proposal form Ex.P3 annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-4 pertain to date, which is before the date when petitioner joined at Hisar. Case of complainant is that signatures on proposal form are forged. If they Crl.Misc.No.M-43794 of 2007 [4] are forged, when they were forged, it is a matter of evidence. In Criminal Law vicarious liability is alien. The Code of Criminal Procedure recognizes common intention under Section 34 IPC and common object under Section 149 IPC. Therefore, if the accused is to be fastened with any criminal liability, there has to be a specific allegation in the complaint. Complaint cannot be filed with a roving enquiry for the Court to make as to who was the accused at the relevant time. Even if such a complaint is filed, the Court before summoning has to find out as to who is accused responsible and that accused is to be summoned by name. In the present case, complainant had left blanks to be filled up by the trial Court, as it was said in the heading of the complaint Divisional Manager, whose name was to be added after evidence. A perusal of preliminary evidence show that no witness has come forward to state that petitioner was accused who was posted at the relevant time and was responsible for any act for commission or omission of the offence. Summoning order is also silent on this aspect. Therefore, summoning order cannot sustain. The same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to apply its mind after hearing counsel for the parties as to whether petitioner is to be summoned or not. The present petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 19, 2009. JUDGE RC