Case: Sanjay Shivaji Dhapse Vs. The State of Maharashtra

2. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed, seeking direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to register an offense as per complaint dated 29th March, 2005 and 8th April, 2005, lodged by the petitioner. Copy of the complaint is placed on record by the petitioner at Exh.D (page No.24 of the compilation of the writ petition).It appears that the grievance of the petitioner, as reflected in the said complaint, is that the Insurance Company did not affix adequate stamp, as is required, as per relevant Rules. As per the contents of the complaint, the Insurance Company was obliged to affix stamp of Rs.10/on the policy of, the Company did affix stamp of Re.1/and, according to the petitioner i.e. the complainant, thereby, the Insurance Company cheated the Government for its own benefit. The said act of the Company is very serious and has caused loss of revenue to the Government and, therefore, inquiry should be made about the said allegations and appropriate action may be taken against the Insurance Company.

Court's reasoning:
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is not present. With the able assistance of learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel for respondent no.3, we have perused the petition, annexures thereto and replies filed by the State as well as the Insurance Company. In the first place, as rightly contended by learned A.P.P., in pursuance to the notices issued to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company did pay deficit stamp duty. Secondly, upon reading the contents of the complaint, in its entirety, not affixing stamp of adequate amount would attract irregularity and it is always subject to verification / check by the concerned Government Department.In the facts of the present case, in response to the notices issued by the concerned Government Department, the deficit stamp duty is paid by the Insurance Company. Even if it is assumed for the moment that some amount is to be deposited by the Insurance Company, it is always open for the concerned Department to put forth a demand and in response to the same, the Insurance Company has to pay the same.Therefore, in our considered view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the grievance raised in the complaint would not survive further.