Karnataka High Court
Dr. Praveen S/O Shekarappa Sajjan vs National Insurance Company Limited on 30 May, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015
C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015
CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102063/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102062/2015
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102064/2015
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102063/2015
BETWEEN:
DR. GAVISIDDAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA PALLED
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:DOCTOR
R/O:MIG-I, 244 HUDCO, GADAG
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
STATION ROAD, GADAG
REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER
SRI.SURESH S/O KASHAPPA KULKARNI
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI
DIST:DHARWAD
MANJANNA ...RESPONDENT
E
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E
-2-
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015
C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015
CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 463,
464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDIGNS INITIATED IN
C.C.NO.3297/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1STI ADDL CIVIL
JUDGE AND 1ST JMFC GADAG.
*****
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102062/2015
BETWEEN:
DR. SANGAMANATH,
S/O. BASAPPA SHETTAR,
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:DOCTOR
R/O: BULLA GALLI, WARD NO.24, GADAG
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
STATION ROAD, GADAG
REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER
SRI.SURESH S/O KASHAPPA KULKARNI
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI
DIST:DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 463,
464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
-3-
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015
C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015
CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDIGNS INITIATED IN
C.C.NO.3297/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL CIVIL
JUDGE AND 1ST JMFC GADAG.
*****
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102064/2015
BETWEEN:
DR. PRAVEEN S/O SHEKARAPPA SAJJAN
MAJOR, OCC:MEDICAL OFFICER,
R/O: K.C. RANI ROAD, GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
STATION ROAD, GADAG
REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER
SRI.SURESH S/O KASHAPPA KULKARNI
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI
DIST:DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 463,
464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDIGNS INITIATED IN
C.C.NO.3297/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL CIVIL
JUDGE AND 1ST JMFC GADAG.
-4-
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015
C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015
CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015
ORDER
1. Heard Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company and perused the records.
2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.PC. with the following prayers:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'lble Court be pleased to quash the complaint filed by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and quash the entire proceedings initiated in CC No.3297/2015 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge and 1st JMFC, Gadag against the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 Cr.PC. for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein and others.-5- CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015
4. In the private complaint, it is contended that the petitioners and other accused persons joined their hands and created a documents to establish that there was an accident that occurred on 30.12.2012 and in respect of the same, after active collusion with the other accused persons, a false complaint came to be lodged by the mother of the injured on 2.1.2013 at about 19.45 hours and a traffic police registered a case. Thereafter, the matter was investigated. The claimants filed a Claim Petition before the tribunal for awarding suitable compensation, based on the registration of the criminal case. The allegations against these petitioners are that they have actively colluded and created a false claim against the Insurance Company. On contest, the Claim Petition came to be dismissed. One of the petitioners namely Dr. Praveen Sajjan, who is accused No.4 in the private complaint was also examined by the Insurance Company as they are witnesses in MVC No.75/2013.
5. While so examining the doctor, the doctor has admitted in the examination in chief itself that though in his regards, he has entered regarding the history of accident as fall from motorcycle, he -6- CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 issued a certificate to the claimant that the claimant had suffered injury in the road traffic accident. Based on the said statement made by Dr.Praveen Sajjan, a private complaint came to be filed stating that he has actively colluded with other claimants to lay a false claim against the petitioners.
6. After receipt of the private complaint, the learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. The same is under challenge before this court by the petitioners herein.
7. In the petition, following grounds have been raised:
The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is illegal, perverse, and unilateral. Hence, is liable to be quashed by the interference of this Hon'ble court.
The learned trial court has committed serious error by Issuing process to the petitioner herein without taking cognizance of the offences.
It is submitted that, this petitioner being a doctor as performed his part of duty. Absolutely there is no material to show that, this petitioner along with other have colluded to help the victim. Therefore, mere making alleging in the complaint would not be sufficient ground to -7- CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 issue summons. The Court must be satisfied that, there are sufficient materials against the person to proceed in the criminal matter and issue summons. However, this aspect of the matter is totally negated by the trial court while passing the order. This itself clearly goes to show that, trial court has not applied its judicious mind while passing the order. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.
It is submitted that, absolutely there is no material show by the respondent that, all the accused have conspired and have colluded with each other to help the accused No.1. In fact a charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motor cycle which is registered as CC No 108/2013. In the said case the rider has pleaded guilty. Therefore, the complaint of the respondent is motivated and only to harass the petitioner herein. Hence, it amounts to abuse of process of court.
It is well settled proposition of law that taking cognizance of the offences means the learned trial court should take judicial notice of the offences alleged. In the present case the trial court has completely lost sight on this aspect and without taking cognizance of the offences the Hon'ble Trial Court has issued summons to the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and bad in law. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.
The learned trial court has committed serious error by not applying its judicious ground as to whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further in the matter before issuing process to the -8- CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 accused. This is one of the vital aspects the trial court should have followed before issuing summons.
That, on careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court it is no where mentioned that whether prima facie case is made out and whether the cognizance of the offence is taken etc. The trial court after registration of the case has straight away issued summons to the petitioner herein. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The trial court has failed to note that the complaint u/s 200 CrPC filed by the respondent herein is premature as the trial in MVC No.75/2013 on the file of the District Judge and MACT Gadag is yet to concluded wherein the complainant has taken the same grounds and unless finding regarding the facts alleged in the private complaint is given, the respondent herein cannot allege that the documents are false and fabricated one. As such the present compliant is not maintainable.
It is submitted that absolutely no material or prima facie case is there against the petitioner. It is submitted that, unless a prima facie case is made out and cognizance is taken issuance of process is illegal and the learned magistrate has clearly erred in not properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in their right perspective, especially in view of settled position of law in the matters of issuing process. As such the impugned order of issuing summons is nothing but gross abuse of power of Court and is liable to be interfered with The learned Magistrate has failed to notice that, the facts alleged in the complaint do not satisfy the -9- CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 essential ingredients of an offence under Section 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120 B, R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. No offence has been made out against the petitioner and hence, complaint and entire proceedings is liable to be quashed as it constitutes abuse of the process of Court The order of the learned Magistrate issuing process to the petitioner is wholly unsustainable. It is well settled that, issuance of process to the accused is an important stage in the case. It is incumbent on the Court to satisfy itself that, the accused is liable to be summoned before the Hon'ble Court to face a criminal trial. The Court ought to have applied its mind with regard to the averments in the complaint, record the sworn statement and after taking cognizance of the offence and after verifying the documents relied upon by the complainant and concluded prima facie that, a case has not been made out against the petitioner, which requires the accused to be summoned. The sworn statement is not recorded and the ingredients of an offence are not attracted. In spite of the same, order has been passed relying upon complaint. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is illegal and amounts to harassment and abuse of process of Court. The proceeding is therefore liable to be quashed.
That the initiation of the Criminal proceeding on the basis of the false and baseless compliant would cause more harassment to the Petitioner. That, initiation and continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore Quashing of the entire proceedings is necessary and would serve the ends of justice.
- 10 -CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015
That, even though the allegations in the complaint and the materials are taken on their face value they do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
In the case in hand, the Learned Magistrate has not at all applied his Judicious mind to the materials produced before proceeding to issue summons of the offences alleged against Petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein are liable to be quashed.
Thus viewed from any angle the order passed by learned magistrate is contrary to law and needs to be set aside.
8. Re-iterating the above grounds, Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that issuance of certificate in respect of the person who has been treated by the petitioners itself would not amount to criminal act and no ingredients whatsoever to attract the offence punishable under Section 463 of IPC has been made out by the complaint averments and the same is not even properly appreciated by the learned trial Magistrate inasmuch as in the order which has been mentioned that the cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and as such, there
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 is no application of mind while issuing summons and thus prayed for allowing these petitions.
9. Per contra, Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that one of the petitioner Dr. Praveen Sajjan (accused No.4) has deposed before the court specifically that though his records contain that the claimant had a fall from the motorcycle, in order to facilitate the claimant to get compensation, issued a false certificate mentioning that the claimant sustained injuries on account of the road traffic accident which is per se illegal and therefore, the order of the trial Magistrate is perfectly justified. He also contended that it is always open for the petitioners herein to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate and make out a case for discharge and in such circumstances, exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. is unwarranted and thus sought for dismissal of the petitions.
10. He also pointed out that issuing a false certificate resulting in false claim, in order to facilitate fake claimants to obtain compensation from the MACT is very rampant in the recent days
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 and if such persons are shown mercy or leniency, it would send not only wrong signal to the society but also results in public money being mis-used by the unscrupulous elements and therefore, such actions must be viewed seriously and such actions must be curbed and therefore, sought for dismissal of these petitions.
11. This court perused the materials on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
12. As could be seen from the records, Dr. Praveen Sajjan, was examined as RW-1 in MVC No.75/2013. He has supported the Insurance Company while he has been examined as witness for the Insurance Company as RW-1 in MVC No.75/2013. Needless to emphasize that the said Claim Petition in MVC No.75/2013 on contest came to be dismissed.
13. However, while so examining, Dr. Praveen Sajjan admitted in the examination in chief that he has issued certificate to the claimant that the claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident despite knowing the fact that he had fallen from the motorcycle. The said aspect of the matter is taken note of by the
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 complainant - Insurance company and contended that knowing fully well, the petitioners have issued a false certificate and thereby all ingredients to attract the offences alleged against them has been established.
14. It is a fact that there is an admission both in examination in chief and cross examination of Dr. Praveen Sajjan that he has issued a certificate mentioning that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident whereas in the history column it is stated that he had a fall from motorcycle, but that itself would not be sufficient enough to impose criminality in the mind of the petitioners in establishing the fact that there is an active collusion to create document so as to obtain compensation falsely. Moreover, since the claim petition is dismissed, the proceedings against the doctors who have issued the certificate should not be blown out of proportion.
15. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Magistrate ought to have applied his mind while taking cognizance, which is mechanical in nature as it is
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 102063 of 2015 C/W CRL.P No. 102062 of 2015 CRL.P No. 102064 of 2015 evident from the very impugned order, wherein the learned trial judge has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,.
16. Be it what it may. Since the petitioners have approached this court under Section 482 Cr.PC. taking note of the fact that the petitioners are not habitual offenders who have indulged in issuing false certificates, treating this as an isolated incident, this court is of the considered opinion that further criminal action against the petitioners needs to be terminated. However, the termination of the proceedings against these petitioners shall in no way affect the rights insofar as other accused persons are concerned.
17. With these observations, the Petitions are allowed. The entire proceedings initiated in CC No.3297/2015 against the petitioners herein only are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the other accused persons shall not take the benefit of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE PL*