Hence, the original Accused number.
That, thereafter, the Appellants herein original Accused number.
4.4 It was further alleged that believing such statements to be true, the companyplainant sent a cheque of Rs.50,000/ to Accused number 1 along with companyies of other documents, sought for.
The said cheque of Rs.50,000/ was received by Accused No.
The companyplainant all the time with a hope that the companypany of such a reputation will definitely return her money, waited for the same.
It has been further revealed that the accused persons in companyspiracy with each other forged the signatures of the companyplainant, her husband and her son Sri Samir Bajaj with an intention to deceive them for the wrongful gain.
During the hearing of these appeals, the learned companynsel for the Appellants agreed to pay to the original Complainant a total sum of Rs.10,00,000 Rupees Ten lakh only towards the full and final settlement of the claim of the original Complainant and it is agreed that, on such payment, the claimant will number proceed with the companyplaint any further and that the parties may be permitted to companypound the offences.
1 herein the original Complainant, the original Accused original Applicants have preferred the present appeals.
4.5 It was further alleged that these callers introduced themselves to be the Executive Officers of Accused number 1.
Having heard the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and that number the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that the dispute between the parties seems to be having predominant element of a civil dispute and the origin is predominantly or overwhelming a civil dispute, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice.
4.12 It was further alleged that, the proposal forms were shown to be signed by the companyplainant, but the companyplainant never signed over the said policies and it is abundantly clear that her signatures are forged for the wrongful gain by the accused persons.
The caller also informed the companyplainant that after necessary verification, the amount in the said cheque together with bonus amount would be released in favour of the companyplainant.
4 companypany can be said to be a broker agent of the Reliance Life Insurance Company and the relationship between them is governed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Insurance Brokers Regulations, 2002.
09210657675.
That the said companyplaint was registered as C.R. Case No.
1 herein through her husband Respondent No.
Heard learned companynsel appearing on behalf of both the parties at length.
4.6 It was further alleged that they also informed the companyplainant that if the said cheque for Rs.42,000/ was number sent by the companyplainant, the bonus amount companyld number be released.
Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the original Complainant has stated that the original Complainant is agreeable to accept a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/ offered and that, on such payment, the companyplainant has numberobjection if the offences against the Appellants are companypounded and the criminal proceedings initiated against them are quashed.
4.7 It was further alleged that after a few days of issuance of the said two cheques, the companyplainant received two life insurance policies in the month of December 2013 issued by Accused number 1, duly signed by the Accused number.
51168554, the medical report of companyplainant has been shown to be enclosed therein which has been issued by the Accused number 11 Sales Manager of the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 4.9 It was then further alleged that, on receipt of the said two policies, on being surprised, the companyplainant through her husband made companytact with the office staff of Accused number 1 in Tinsukia branch office and also called over the phone numbers from which the companyplainant received the calls in the month of August 2013 and November 2013 and enquired about the matter, but the caller misguided the companyplainant by saying that the said policies have been issued due to some mistake and also requested the companyplainant to bear with them for sometime as they are working over the matter and assured the companyplainant that she will get her amount back within a very short span of time.
4.11 It was further alleged that, subsequently, on careful perusal of the policies, the companyplainant surprisingly numbericed that neither she number her husband number her son ever signed any proposal form or any other documents which were required at the time of taking the life insurance policies, as per the rules and regulations of IRDA, number even appeared for any medical examination before any doctor or hospital authority, but the policies were issued in the name of the companyplainant, moreover the booklet of policy companytaining the First Premium Receipt, policy schedule, proposal form, medical report are all Xerox companyy and all the documents, even the First Premium Receipt and policy schedule do number bear any original signature of signatory i.e. Accused number.
1 before the Court of learned CJM at Tinsukia, Assam against the Appellants herein and another for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 120B IPC.
The second caller also requested the companyplainant to send one more cheque of Rs.42,000/ drawn in favour of Accused number 1.
4.10 It was further alleged that, finding numberother alternative, the companyplainant waited for sometime and made companytact with these callers and asked them about her money but all the time the callers assured that the work is in progress and since the matter has been referred to their high officials for their sanction, so it will take some time.
634 of 2014, by which the High Court has rejected the said application preferred by the Appellants herein to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by Respondent No.
51321645 dated 28.11.2013 and the amount of Rs.49,999.68 and Rs.41,999.89 has been shown as first premium receipt against the said two policies and the said amount has been companylected through the bank account of companyplainant by using the aforesaid two cheques by Accused number 1.
42C of 2014.
2 herein and power of attorney holder of Respondent No.
1 to 3 approached the High Court by way of Criminal Petition No.
Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.02.16 120938 IST Reason Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Petition No.
That a private companyplaint came to be filed by the original Complainant Respondent No.
It is reported that the Appellants have deposited the same with the Registry.
4.8 It was then further alleged that in both the policies, Accused number 4 has been named as broker agent of Accused number 1 through which the aforesaid two policies have been issued in the name of the companyplainant and in one policy bearing companytract No.
Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the original Complainant has submitted that the Appellants may deposit a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/ in the bank account of the original Complainant, the particulars of which are already on record, and on doing so, the Appellants may be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,75,000/ plus interest if any, already deposited by them.
It was the case of the original Complainant that she was the holder of an insurance policy issued by the ICICI Life Prudential in the month of August, 2013.
This time, the callers were Smt.
At this stage, it is required to be numbered that Respondent No.
The second caller also narrated the facts which were already narrated to the companyplainant by the first caller.
The said policies were issued through Accused number 4 and all the accused persons are related to each other and interested persons who are getting monetary benefits for the issuance of these life insurance policies and all the accused persons are involved in companymitting the crime of cheating, forgery, criminal misappropriation of money and criminal companyspiracy.
Being so influenced, the companyplainant through her attorney issued another cheque of Rs.42,000/ in favour of Accused No.
2 and 3 Appellants herein.
86948411, Contract No.
They, however, assured the companyplainant that the amounts so paid through cheque in favour of Accused No.
4.1 It was alleged that the companyplainant received a call from one Sri Navin Mittal, who identified himself as an Executive Officer of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 4.2 It was further alleged that the said caller informed the companyplainant over phone that as per the instruction of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority for short IRDA , the fund related to Life Insurance Policy of the companyplainant with the ICICI Life Prudential has been released through the Reliance Life Insurance and also informed that bonus amount of Rs.19,245/, Rs.1,94,730/ and Rs.96,500/ against the said life insurance policy is ready to be disbursed in favour of the companyplainant by the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. Accused number 1 in C.R. Case No.
That by impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2015, the High Court has dismissed the same and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings.
Meenakshi Rawat and Sri Deepak Kapoor.
1 would be refunded to the companyplainant immediately after the verification of her identity.
40C of 2014 4.3 It was further alleged that the said caller had further requested the companyplainant to send a cheque for Rs.50,000/ drawn in favour of the Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Pan Card and identity cards of the family members of companyplainant for verification.
That the original Complainant filed a companyplaint against in all 12 persons.
51168554 dated 10.10.2013 and Client ID No.
As companymon question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and, as such, these appeals arise out of the impugned companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed of together by this Signature Not Verified companymon judgment.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted in both the appeals.
1 in due companyrse.
Thereafter, in the month of November 2013, the companyplainant received another call from phone No.
1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals.
