IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1250 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI D NAHESHWER S/O LATE D KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT PARK VIEW APARTMENTS FF 8, 2ND MAIN GAVIPURAM EXTENSION BANGALORE 560019 (BY SRI: RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DR NIKHILANAND HEGDE S/O SADASHIVA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO 2043 HIGH POINT NO 45/2, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 2. MR S H SHARMA THE GENERAL MANAGER SERVICE TAFE ACCESS LTD BHARANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NO 919, GARVEPALYA CHIKKABEGUR ROAD OFF HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE 560 068 ... PETITIONER 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAFE ACCESS LTD., AUTHORISED DEALER OF SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD., NO 43, GRAMES ROAD OPP MRF BUILDING, CHENNAI 600 006 (DELETED V/O/D 17.08.2015) 4. MR JOSE THOMAS REGIONAL HEAD SOUTH SALES TAFE ACCESS LTD., ST MARKS ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 (BY SRI: HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-ABSENT ... RESPONDENTS SRI: UDAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.8.2015 R3 IS DELETED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.392/13 ON THE FILE OF THE III ACMM, BANGALORE IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO PETR.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant is absent.
2. Petitioner herein is a professional Surveyor and Loss Assessor authorized by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. At the instance of the United Insurance Company Limited, he prepared a survey report in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA.09.N.7116 belonging to the complainant/ respondent No.1 which had met with an accident. The vehicle had sustained extensive damage. Petitioner herein assessed the cost of repair at Rs.8,69,720/-. When the vehicle was taken for repair, a final bill of around Rs.11 lakhs was issued. According to the complainant, the vehicle had infact suffered total loss, but the accused persons in collusion with each other, with an intention to cheat the complainant by not declaring the vehicle as total loss, represented to the complainant that the said vehicle could be repaired and thereby committed the offences punishable under sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Further it is contended that in order to carry out the repair at a high cost behind the back of the complainant, the accused persons prepared forged and false documents namely a job card and hence charges under sections 465 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code were also incorporated in the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein conducted a survey at the instance of the Insurance Company and not at the instance of the complainant. Even though the vehicle was insured for a total value of Rs.6,51,000/-, the petitioner assessed the damages at Rs.8,69,720/- which was far in excess of the insured value of the vehicle. In view of the said report, it was for the Insurance Company to treat the loss as total loss; instead the vehicle having been repaired at the instance of the Insurance Company, the petitioner herein cannot be held responsible for the bill issued by the repairer. Under the said circumstances, prosecution of the petitioner for the above offences is wholly illegal and amounts to abuse of process of court.
4. On perusal of the allegations made in the private complaint and the documents produced by the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the vehicle belonging to the complainant met with an accident on 21.1.2010. The intimation of survey was given only on 1.2.2010. The vehicle was inspected on 1.2.2010 and the report was submitted by the petitioner on 4.2.2010. Based on the said report, the Insurance Company having taken the decision to get the vehicle repaired, the petitioner herein being the Surveyor cannot be accused of the cheating and conspiracy. According to the complainant, vehicle had suffered total loss. Report submitted by the petitioner also indicates that the vehicle had suffered total loss. Petitioner has not suppressed or concealed any facts. Under the said circumstances, it was for the Insurance Company to treat the vehicle as total loss. There is nothing in the entire records to indicate that the petitioner herein had any say in the decision taken by the Insurance Company to get the vehicle repaired. Under the said circumstances, allegations made against the petitioner, in my view, do not attract the ingredients of offences under sections 120B, 420, 465, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the above offences are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.392/2013 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed only insofar as present petitioner namely accused No.3 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss