RITU RAJ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. A. Shamasi, counsel for opposite party no. 2.

(2.) Aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 2934(C) of 2005 taking cognizance for offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B I.P.C. and issuing summons for trial, the petitioner, Branch Manager of National Insurance Company is before this Court with a plain and simple case that the complainant had a mediclaim policy and was well aware of its terms and conditions and its alleged breach can at best be civil liability and therefore continuance of criminal prosecution for such breach would be out and out abuse process of the court.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there be any deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance company or the Third Party Administrator (T.P.A.), M/s Genins India Ltd., the petitioner in the capacity of Branch Manager cannot be made liable for criminal prosecution inasmuch as the whole case is out and out a dispute of civil nature. He further relies on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insuracne Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., 2004 2 PLJR 458.