SANJEEV KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the Branch Manager of National Insurance Company, gaya, has preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 1. 2. 2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1352 of 2005 by which Sri Om Sagar, Judicial magistrate. 1st Class, Gaya, has taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 and 504, IPC at the instance of the o. P. No. 2 herein.

(2.) MUKESH Kumar filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia, alleging that he is owner of a Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing registration No. BR-2d-1365, which was insured with the National Insurance company, Gaya Branch (hereinafter referred to as "the company")and that on 19. 7. 2003 the aforesaid motorcycle was snatched by some miscreants for which warsaliganj P. S. Case No. 96 of 2002 was registered and for which a written report was submitted to the Branch Manager of the Company on 21. 9. 2003. It is further stated that the final form was submitted by the police in the Warsaliganj Case on 5. 4. 2005 which was accepted by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Gaya. It is further alleged that the surveyor assessed loss of the complainant due to the theft of Rs. 40,755 but the petitioner, notwithstanding the complainant having filed all relevant papers demanded a sum of Rs. 7,000 in advance for settlement of the claim failing which the claim application would be rejected on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of the petitioner several times and requested for payment but on each occasion his request was turned down for non-fulfilment of the illegal demand. It is said that when on 4. 10. 2005 at about 11 a. m. the complainant went to the office of the petitioner along with narendra Kumar and requested for justice and settlement of the claim, the accused became furious and began to abuse him in filthy language, assaulted him with fists and slaps, forcibly took away Rs. 4,000 from his pocket and eventually pushed him out of the office. It is further alleged that the complainant went to the Civil Lines Police Station and narrated the entire incidence but the police advised the complainant to file a case in the Court. It has also been alleged that the accused had created some forged documents and had cheated the complainant in the claim matter.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the complaint had been lodged by the complainant for the theft of his motorcycle, since the amount was more than Rs. 20,000, in view of Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, 1939, and the claim had been inspected and surveyed by an independent surveyor licensed by the insurance Regulatory and Development authority wherein it was found that at the time of the incident the person driving the insured vehicle was not having a driving licence and the driving licence produced by him was found to be fake and fabricated his claim could not be allowed. It has also been submitted that the claim was beyond the financial jurisdiction of the petitioner and as such he had referred the claim of the complainant to the Divisional Office for settlement and investigation of the claim and as such the petitioner had no role in rejecting the claim of the complainant. It has also been submitted that on receiving the intimation from the competent authority at the divisional office that the claim had been repudiated the petitioner informed the complainant by letter dated 22. 8. 2005 the reasons for such repudiation.