- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of Criminal complaint No. 1175 dated 9.11.2003 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 15.6.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak under Sections 420 IPC (Annexure P2) along with all consequent proceedings relating thereto.
(2.) The contents of the complaint (Annexure P1) read as under:- 1. That this complainant is the owner in possession of a Maruti Car No. HR-12-B-4306. Before the registration of his car the complainant had already got it third party insured. 2.That the accused Nos. 2 and 3 approached. The complainant alongwith one of his close friends on 27.2.1998 and tried to persuade the complainant, explaining the benefits of full insurance and the efficiency and promptness with which the company acts in making payments in case of accidents to set his car fully insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (alled) Company). 3. That again on Monday the 2 nd March, 1988 all of the three accused came to the residence of the complainant and is honestly and fraudulently induced the complainant to get his car fully insured with the company and falsely, dishonestly and fraudulently assured the complainant that he would face no problem at all if his vehicle meets an accident. The complainant was induced and promised to get his vehicle insured with the company on second or on third March,1998. 4. That the complainant, induced as he was, got his vehicle fully insured for Rs, 2,43,000/- with the company through accused No.2, on 3.3.98 and parted with Rs, 10481/- as per details given on the cover note. 5. That on 11.3.98 the above said insured car of the complainant was hit by a Tata 407 Four Wheeler and....(sic) quite unserviceable; a Rapat No.23 was got lodged with the P.S. Civil Lines, Rohtak in the jurisdiction of which the place of accident falls, the company was informed through accused No.1 on 19.3.98 after 9 days being holidays in between and he was requested to send the surveyor. The estimated loss assessment report was also submitted to the accused No.1 on his asking to the complainant. 6. That the accused No.3 himself times and again inspected the wrecked vehicle of the complainant and then the accused No.1 also accompanied him at a workshop where the vehicle had been kept. But the accused No.3, instead of giving his survey report to the company, vide his letter dated 3.4.98, sought explanation of the complainant on several points which the complainant,vide his reply dated 19.5.98, explained truthfully. 7. That thereafter the accused No.3 started bargaining for making payments for total loss. The complainant thereupon made a written representation to accused No.1 on 3.9.1998 and explaining the whole truth therein requested to make the payment of the full insured amount. But the accused No.1 advised the complainant to persuade accused No.3 otherwise he will not get the full insured amount and refused to help the complainant and thus the complainant came to know that all of the three accused persons were co-accomplices and had defrauded the complainant in the above manner, the complainant had filed a complaint against accused no.3 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act on 6.8.1988 which is pending in the Court of Sh.L.N.Mittal, the learned Special Judge, Rohtak. 8. That all of the accused have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC .
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to the accident in question, complainant had moved a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.;