Dismissed

Sri Ashok .S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2024CRL.P/9727/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.2, a vehicle inspector employed by an insurance agent, sought quashing of proceedings alleging his inspection report was false and enabled post-accident insurance policy issuance and claim settlement to accused No.3. The court found allegations sufficient to constitute cheating and criminal breach of trust and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Ashok .S Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9727 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI ASHOK .S S/O SRINIVAS EMPLOYEE OF VIVA MAGNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WHEELERS PRIVATE LTD, NO.130, AKKU PET., DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL - 562110.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.R.NAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDILNGS, BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD OFFICE AT NO.30, 3RD FLOOR JNR CITY CENTER RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR, BANGALORE-560027

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶18

REPRESENTED BY K.PRABHU AREA HEAD MOTOR OD CLAIMS.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶21

¶22

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.24/2021 (PCR.NO.6158/2018) REGISTERED BY S.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 465, 120B OF IPC WHICH IS NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.36120/2021 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC No.36120/2021 pending on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru on the private complaint referred by the Learned Magistrate in PCR No.6158/2018 and arising out of Cr. No.24/2021 of S.R. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 120-B of IPC.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. Notice to respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that a private complaint preferred by the respondent No.2 before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it is alleged that respondent No.2 is the Insurance company and accused No.1 was its agent. Accused No.1 recommended for issuance of insurance policy for the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-423 M-7659 belonging to the accused No.3, where the accused No.2

¶29

petitioner herein, was sent to the spot inspection of the vehicle on issuance of the insurance policy. Based upon the inspection report and photographs submitted by the petitioner - accused No.2, accused No.1 recommended for issuance of insurance policy and accordingly policy is said to have been issued on 21.01.2017.

¶30

Subsequently, on 23.01.2017 the said vehicle belongs to accused No.3 is said to be met with an accident at Attur High Road within the jurisdiction of Ethapur Police Station, Salem District, Tamilnadu. A claim application came to be filed by accused No.3 and after verifying the inspection report the Complainant - Insurance Company satisfied the award and settled the claim in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶33

Thereafter, the Complainant - Insurance Company came to know that the accused No.1 has given the false recommendation that the vehicle was not inspected by the accused No.2 properly, accused No.3 showed some other vehicle to accused No.2 and without proper inspection accused No.2 recommended for issuance of insurance policy and later it was found in the investigation that the insurance policy was issued after the accident. Therefore, Complainant - Insurance Company lodged the complaint.

¶34

The concerned police received the complaint, but they are reluctant to take any action against the accused persons and have not registered any case against them. The Complainant - Insurance Company have also informed the same to the higher authorities of the police, but in vain. Hence, they preferred a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Magistrate.

¶35

The Learned Magistrate accepted the private complaint and directed the concerned police to register a case against the accused persons. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 Police registered an FIR and investigated the matter. After investigation the Police have filed the charge sheet only against

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶37

accused No.2, the present petitioner and accused No.3, the RC owner of the vehicle, four wheeler Car, but dropped the case as against accused No.1, which is under challenge.

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioner seriously contended that there is no cheating as stated by the Complainant in the complaint and there is no conspiracy or collusion with the accused No.2 and accused No.3 for issuance of insurance policy to accused No.1. There is no CD or record collected by the police to show that they conspired by telephonically in order to cheat the Complainant. The insurance policy was issued on the recommendation of accused No.1 and the petitioner - accused No.2 is only an employee of accused No.1. It is not shown that he has received any illegal gratification for giving false inspection report for issue of insurance policy. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against this petitioner - accused No.2 is abuse of process of law. The ingredients of Section 420 of IPC is not attracted and hence, she prays to quash the criminal proceedings as against the present petitioner - accused No.2.

¶39

Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objects the petition, on the ground that this petitioner - accused No.2, who

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶41

visited the spot, inspected the vehicle and taken photograph of the kilometer and ODO meter he submitted a report to the accused No.1. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the accused No.1 the insurance policy was issued and later it was found that the insurance policy was issued after the accident, thereby accused Nos.2 and 3 have manipulated the documents and cheated the Complainant - Insurance company in obtaining the insurance policy. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶42

Having heard the arguments of the petitioner and learned HCGP and on perusal of the entire material on record, it reveals that the accident in question and issuance of insurance policy are not disputed. The petitioner - accused No.2 is a worker under accused No.1, who is the agent and as per the complaint accused No.1 recommended the accused No.3 for issuance of insurance policy for vehicle in question. Accused No.1 said to be instructed the petitioner - accused No.2, who is his employee, to inspect the vehicle and submit a report. Accordingly, petitioner - accused No.2 inspected the vehicle, took the photograph and submitted a report. On his report, accused No.1 believed the same and recommended the accused

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶45

No.3 for issuance of insurance policy to Complainant - Insurance company.

¶46

Subsequently, the vehicle is said to be met with an accident on 23.01.2017, is not in dispute. The accused No.3 filed a claim petition before the Complainant - Insurance company for having obtained the insurance policy and after spot inspection of the vehicle the Complainant - Insurance company cleared the settlement by paying a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.

¶47

Thereafter, the Complainant - Insurance company verified the documents, such as, inspection report submitted by the accused No.2 and accused No.1 recommendation for issuance of insurance policy, they came to know that the vehicle was insured only after it met with an accident and not prior to it. The report submitted by the petitioner - accused No.2 to the accused No.1 on his request and the same was recommended to Complainant - Insurance company, the insurance policy came to be issued.

¶48

It is the main allegation that because of the petitioner - accused No.2, who conducted the spot inspection and verified the vehicle submitted a report along with

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶50

photographs, when the Complainant - Insurance company verified the photographs, it found that the number plate after the accident the vehicle registration number, number plate and other details are different and varies from the one submitted by petitioner - accused No.2. Therefore, they suspected the petitioner - accused No.2 given a false report to accused No.1 and thereafter accused No.1 based on the same recommended for issuance of insurance policy to the accused No.3, which is only after the accident.

¶51

In fact, the insurance policy was issued at the recommendation of accused No.1 on the basis of false report submitted by the petitioner - accused No.2 after inspection of the vehicle in question along with photographs, thereafter, the Complainant - Insurance company settled the claim to accused No.3.

¶52

It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner - accused No.2 in collusion with the accused No.3 given a false report by receiving any money. But, it is the case of the prosecution that he has not properly inspected the vehicle and given his report based upon which the insurance policy was issued. If the petitioner - accused No.2 has not given a false

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶54

report, the question of issuance of insurance policy does not arises. Therefore, petitioner - accused No.2 has received money from accused No.3 or not, is not the criteria to give a false report without proper inspection, thus, the Complainant - Insurance company has issued a insurance policy at the recommendation of the accused No.1.

¶55

Therefore, the Police rightly dropped the accused No.1, since he has only recommended made on the basis of the inspection report along with photographs submitted by the petitioner - accused No.2. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is not acceptable that there is no ingredients to attract the cheating of the Complainant - Insurance company.

¶56

Because of petitioner - accused No.2 the insurance policy came to be issued and claim was settled by the Complainant - Insurance company to accused No.3 and thereby causing wrongful loss to the Insurance company, which attracts the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC also.

¶57

Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit. If any defence is available to the petitioner - accused No.2, it has to be stated before the Learned Magistrate during the trial and

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:12924 CRL.P No. 9727 of 2022

¶59

10 -

¶60

this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings on this ground. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

VK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Ashok .S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Ashok .S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Paramashivaiah Vs Sri Basavaraja

Shri Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash M Vs Smt Vijayalaxmi Ramesh

Shivappa a R Vs Smt.Jayamma @ Jayamala U K

Sri G Venkatesh Vs Sri Arvind Loya

Smt Ushanandini Shankar Vs Sri Prasanna D