Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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
 

Latest Legal News