PARVEEN SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH JASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dtd. 23/1/2014 passed by the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in a complaint, titled "Rajinder Singh Jaswal vs. Parveen Singh Wazir and another" for commission of offence under Sec. 323, 504 and 506 RPC, by virtue of which the process has been issued against the petitioners and also prayer is made for dismissing the aforesaid complaint.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioners are the law abiding citizens and are working in the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. The petitioner No. 1 is holding the post of Manager whereas the petitioner No. 2 is an independent Surveyor working for the said company. It is further stated that the insurance claim was received by the insurance company with respect to the vehicle bearing registration No. JK02AH 5260, that was damaged due to the accident at Miran Sahib Jammu. The vehicle stands registered in the name of one S. Yudhveer Singh S/o Swarn Singh. Thereafter, the petitioners processed the claim of the said accidental vehicle as per the company's rules and the matter was referred to the Investigator of the company, Mr. R. N. Tickoo. The said Investigator thereafter contacted the owner of the vehicle S. Yudhveer Singh for verification regarding the vehicle but the said S. Yudhveer Singh stated that the car at the time of accident was lying with the respondent herein, an employee of the Jammu Ford Company. The said S. Yudhveer Singh further stated that he has made only one insurance claim regarding the vehicle in question and he was not aware of any other claim much less the claim under reference. Further, S. Yudhveer Singh also denied to have signed the claim form and consent letter submitted before the company. It is further stated that after this development, it became crystal clear that the respondent forged the signatures of the owner of the vehicle i.e. S. Yudhveer Singh and submitted the claim form to the Insurance Company. Thereafter, a serious note was taken by the Investigator regarding the impersonation and forged claim form filed by the respondent and the Investigator suggested the company i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company to register a complaint against the respondent under Sec. 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC vide letter dtd. 17/9/2013. While the matter was under consideration with the company, the respondent somehow came to know about the said proposed action being taken against him regarding the forged claim form. Therefore, he filed the complaint in question on false and frivolous grounds, against the employees of the Insurance Company i.e. petitioners herein. Further it is stated that the perusal of the complaint shows that a false incident alleged in the complaint has been shown to have occured on 30/11/2013 whereas the complaint was filed before the court on 22/1/2014 on the basis of absolutely false allegations as the petitioners never visited the office of the respondent to meet him and to settle the insurance claim as the Investigator had already made a recommendation to the company for filing a criminal complaint against the respondent. The allegations in the complaint are absurd as it is the Insurance Company who has to make the payment, as the petitioners were not to pay the said claim frtom their own pocket. It is stated that the complaint has been filed by the respondent with ulterior motive so that the company does not file any complaint against the respondent.

(3.) It is further stated that no offence is made out against the petitioners in the complaint. The learned trial court too, while issuing the process against the petitioners, has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the complaint.