Possession and Part Performance: Stamp Duty Compliance Is Non-Negotiable, Says Delhi High Court Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner No Profits, No Deduction — Section 33AC Must Precede 80-I Calculation in Shipping Tax Disputes: Bombay High Court Equity and Merit Must Coexist: Kerala High Court Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Forest Department Employees Lawyers Have No Right to Strike: Madras High Court in Contempt Case Encroachment is like committing a 'dacoity' against public resources: Delhi High Court. High Court Rejects Plea of Kindergarten School Against ESI Contribution Assessment Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Citing 'Humanitarian Consideration' After Accused Marries Victim Procedural Delays Do Not Justify Condonation of Delay," Rules Delhi Consumer Commission in National Insurance Case Elements of Section 300 IPC Are Not Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Murder Conviction in 1987 Beating Case Registrar Cannot Be a Judge of His Own Cause: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Amendments MP High Court Upholds Prosecution for Forged Patta: 'Accountability in Public Office is Non-Negotiable Approval Must Be Granted for Altruistic Kidney Donations," Rules Madras High Court Grave Illegality in Appellate Remand: High Court of Rajasthan Orders Reassessment on Merits Commissioner Lacked Authority for Retrospective Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Educational Trusts' Registrations Intent is Crucial in Violent Crimes: Single Blow with Axe Does Not Imply Attempt to Murder," Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized

12 November 2024 10:33 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh rules CJM Jammu lacked jurisdiction in insurance claim dispute, emphasizing the civil nature of such cases.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed an FIR against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., ruling that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Jammu lacked jurisdiction in the matter. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, emphasizes that disputes arising from insurance claims are fundamentally civil and should not be given a criminal character.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Kuldeep Kour, whose son, Inder Pal Singh, died in Switzerland in March 2013. Prior to his trip, Inder Pal Singh, along with his family members, had obtained an insurance policy from Bajaj Allianz, covering medical expenses, evacuation, and repatriation of remains. Despite repeated requests from Singh’s brother for financial assistance due to Singh’s deteriorating health, the insurance company allegedly failed to act, resulting in his death. Post his death, the insurance company refused the claim, stating that the insurance was canceled before the trip. Kuldeep Kour alleged forgery and conspiracy by the insurance company, leading to the registration of FIR No.79/2013 for offenses including culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cheating, and forgery.

Jurisdictional Issues: The court meticulously analyzed the jurisdictional aspects, determining that the CJM, Jammu, did not have the authority to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent. “Neither any event nor its consequence has taken place within the territorial limits of either CJM or within the territorial limits of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu,” Justice Dhar stated. This lack of jurisdiction rendered the FIR and the subsequent investigation by the Gandhi Nagar police station invalid.

Nature of the Dispute: Addressing the core of the dispute, the court emphasized the civil nature of the insurance claim. The complaint revolved around non-payment of an insurance policy claim following the death of Inder Pal Singh in Switzerland. The court noted, “The transaction between the insurer and the insured is purely contractual in nature. If any of the parties to this contract defaults in honouring its commitment, it cannot form a basis for launching a criminal prosecution.”

Justice Dhar highlighted Supreme Court precedents to support the ruling. Citing G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State Of UP. And Ors (2000) and Indian Oil Corporation vs NEPC India Limited (2006), the judgment reiterated that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases to expedite resolution. “The Supreme Court has time and again expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute,” Justice Dhar remarked.

“The order whereby the learned CJM, Jammu, has directed the SHO to register the impugned FIR and investigate the same is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside,” stated Justice Dhar. Furthermore, the court observed, “Merely because, on the basis of non-payment of compensation under the insurance policy to the complainant, her son breathed his last, it cannot be stated that the petitioner-company was, in any manner, responsible for his death.”

The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against Bajaj Allianz is a landmark judgment that reinforces the separation of civil and criminal jurisdictions in disputes arising from contractual obligations. By nullifying the criminal proceedings, the court has underscored the need to handle insurance claim disputes within the appropriate legal framework. This ruling is expected to serve as a precedent, discouraging the misuse of criminal prosecution in civil matters.

Date of Decision: 24th May 2024
 

Similar News