STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Justice Rajnesh Oswal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today dismissed the petition filed Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Ltd seeking quashment of FIR registered by CBI in much publicized scam of Healthcare Insurance Policy for all the State Government employees.
High Court while dismissing the petition, also directed CBI to conclude the investigation expeditiously.
The petitioner-company has sought the quashing of FIR bearing No.RC1232022A0004 dated April 19, 2022 registered by the respondent No1 at the instance of respondent No.3 under Section 120-B r/w Section 420 of J&K Penal Code (Ranbir Penal Code) and under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of the J&K PC Act, inter-alia, on the grounds that the Anti-Corruption Bureau, J&K, has already investigated into the allegations raised by the General Administration Department, Government of J&K and in its report has concluded that no irregularity in the execution and implementation of the health scheme for J&K Government employees was found, as such, the respondent No.1 cannot continue with the investigation in the FIR on the basis of same set of allegations; that the contents of FIR do not disclose the commission of any of the offences as alleged qua the petitioner-company, as such, the FIR could not have been registered against the petitioner, more particularly when the petitioner-company has suffered a heavy loss to the tune of Rs.2.31 crores (approximately) in the contract which was subsequently cancelled by the Government;
That the FIR was registered by the CBI on April 19, 2022 and notices dated December 14, 2022 and June 15, 2023 were served upon the petitioner-company for submitting some documents. Though the petitioner-company provided all the requisite documents yet again notice dated January 16, 2024 was served upon the petitioner asking for similar set of documents and along with personal details which have been duly replied and almost all the available documents have been provided to the respondents.
It is stated that after being successful in the tendering process, the petitioner was appointed as Insurance Broker to design and implement the Group Mediclaim Healthcare Insurance Policy for all the State Government employees including the employees of PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Local Bodies/Universities, pensioners etc. and their dependant family members for a period of three years. An agreement was entered into between petitioner-company and the Government on November 27, 2017. A tender was floated by the Finance Department through petitioner-company for appointment of insurance company for its Group Mediclaim Healthcare Insurance Policy but due to poor response, no one could be selected and fresh tenders were floated by the Finance Department for the aforesaid purpose on June 1, 2018. It is further stated that seven bids were received from the tenderers out of which Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short “RGICL”) was declared as lowest bidder as its bid was 40% less than the other bidders and finally was recommended for issuance of Letter of Award. A tripartite agreement dated October 15, 2018 was executed between petitioner-company, Government of J&K and RGICL. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner-company has not received any amount from the J&K Government but has received remuneration from RGICL only for a brief period of three months as brokerage charges in terms of the agreement. The aforesaid agreement was terminated abruptly vide notice dated November 30, 2018 by the Finance Department of the J&K Government without assigning any justification and thereafter an investigation was carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short “the ACB”) in respect of alleged malpractices in awarding the aforesaid contract to RGICL but after thorough investigation, the ACB concluded that no irregularity was found in the matter. Further, the communication was made to RGICL for recovery of balance amount as per the relevant clause of the contract. In the reports of the ACB dated 27.11.2019 and 08.02.2022 submitted to the Government it was specifically stated that no irregularity has been found during the course of verification by ACB. Thereafter, Deputy Secretary to Government of J&K, vide communication dated 23.03.2022 referred the matter to the CBI along with its report and in pursuance to the aforesaid reference, FIR bearing No.RC1232022A0004 dated 19.04.2022 was registered at Srinagar by the respondents No.1 and 2. It is further averred that the allegations made in the FIR by the CBI are based on the written communication alleging the connivance and conspiracy between unknown public officials of the Government of J&K, petitioner-company and M/S RGICL to allegedly commit the offences of conspiracy and criminal misconduct to cause pecuniary advantage to themselves and wrongful loss to the sate exchequer during the period 2017-18. It is urged that the petitioner-company and its officials fully participated and cooperated during the course of aforesaid investigation and when the petitioner appeared before the respondents, the respondent No.2 conducted thorough investigation and put several questions to the petitioner’s Director – Harshit Jain, which were duly replied by him.
The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the response stating therein that a Regular Case No.RC1232022A0004 was registered by CBI, ACB, Srinagar, on April 19, 2022 against the petitioner, RGICL and other underknown public servants and private persons under Section 120-B r/w Section 420 of J&K Penal Code (Ranbir Penal Code) and under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of the J&K PC Act, on the basis of written complaint dated March 23, 2022 submitted by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of J&K, General Administration Department. It is further stated that unknown officials/officers of the Government of J&K in conspiracy with M/S Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Limited and M/S RGICL committed criminal misconduct by hiring M/S Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Limited as consultant/intermediary to guide the department in tendering process. M/S RGICL was selected as Insurer for Group Mediclaim Insurance of employees and pensioners of J&K Govt. in the year 2018 by violating the Financial Rules and an amount of Rs.61,43,78,800/ was released in favour of M/S RGICL before signing of agreement. M/S RGICL was allowed to misappropriate the funds of J&K Government by allowing insurance policy to continue for one quarter, wherein the notice for foreclosure of the contract with effect from December 31, 2018 was served upon M/S RGICL on November 30, 2018. It is further averred that after registration of FIR, investigation is being carried out and during investigation, Harshit Jain, Director and Principal Officer of the petitioner-Company was requested to produce the documents including communications with insurance companies, TPAs and Government of J&K, eligibility of M/S Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Limited, documents regarding expenses incurred, payments received etc. and to give his statement regarding allegations of malpractices. He attended the CBI, ACB, Srinagar, office on July 20 and 21, 2022 and produced photocopies of the documents. On July 21, 2022, his statement was recorded but before completion of his statement, he requested to defer the statement due to ill health and as he wanted to refer to his office records before making further statement and accordingly Harshit Jain was directed to attend the CBI, ACB, Srinagar office after one week along with all original/certified documents and he was relieved from CBI office. Thereafter, despite telephonic calls and notices issued to Harshit Jain, he did not participate in the investigation and levelled false allegations of harassment without any basis, with ulterior motive to stall the smooth investigation of the case. M/S RGICL has paid any amount of Rs.4,36,07,033/ to the petitioner as brokerage out of the premium received from the Government. The Government of J&K had deducted the premium amount from the salaries of lacs of Government employees and received premium amount from the pensioners as well. The petitioner and RGICL are duty bound to cooperate during the investigation. It is also stated that the ACB, J&K, has not investigated the matter, rather has only conducted limited preliminary enquiry/verification and at present, the CBI is conducting thorough investigation of the allegations made in the FIR. During search of the premises of the petitioner, certain incriminating documents were seized and the said documents are being examined.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal after hearing both the sides observed that the first contention raised by the petitioner is that there are no allegations against the petitioner in FIR in respect of the commission of any offence whatsoever. This is an undisputed fact that the premium paid to the RGICL was, in fact, deducted from the salaries of the Government employees and an amount of Rs.61.44 crores was paid to M/S RGICL as first instalment of premium and out of that premium, an amount of Rs.4,36,07,033/ has been admittedly received by M/S Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Limited, the petitioner herein, as brokerage. The FIR was registered by the respondent No.1 pursuant to the communication dated 23.03.2022 and the office memoranda dated 10.02.2022 of the Finance Department, Codes Division, Government of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu, forms part of the said communication. The perusal of the communication dated 10.02.2022 reveals certain allegations in respect of award of contract to RGICL without e-tendering process and that changes were made in the agreement with the petitioner after the agreement was signed, have been levelled. It is settled law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia and the purpose of registration of FIR is to only set the criminal law into motion so as to come to final conclusion as to whether an offence has been committed or not and if during the course of investigation, the investigating agency comes to the conclusion that the offence is not proved, then the closure report can be filed by it. So far as the present case is concerned, there are allegations levelled against the petitioner and other government officials as well as against RGICL which are required to be probed in detail and at this stage when investigation has not reached at the final stage and the investigating agency is still in the process of gathering evidence, the FIR cannot be quashed. The facts are still hazy and not clear as such the contention raised by the petitioner-company is mis-conceived.
The second contention raised by the petitioner is that once the ACB had enquired in detail the similar allegations, the impugned FIR could not have been registered by the respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.3. The perusal of the communication dated 23.03.2022 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 reveals that the respondent No.1 was requested to investigate the matter only after the reported submitted by the ACB was considered and the learned Senior AAG appearing for respondent No.3 is right in his submission that in order to get fair, independent and transparent investigation, it was thought proper by the respondent No.3 to get the matter regarding allotment of contract investigated independently as huge public money was involved. This Court has examined the record produced by the CBI and has found that the CBI is not only investigating the allotment of contract to M/S RGICL but also the engagement of petitioner-company as insurance broker. This Court would not like to comment in respect of the mode and manner in which the petitioner was engaged as insurance broker at this stage because the matter is still being investigated by the respondent No.1. This aspect of the case was never enquired into by the ACB, J&K. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard too is not sufficient for quashing of the impugned FIR, Court observed that
The third contention raised by the learned senior counsel, though not pleaded in the petition, is that there is delay of four years in registration of FIR. Simply on the ground that the FIR has been registered after a huge delay, the same cannot be quashed as earlier the matter was being enquired into by the ACB which submitted its reports on November 27, 2019 and February 8, 2022. After considering the report submitted by the ACB, the matter was referred to the respondent No.1 for investigation by the respondent No.3 vide communication dated March 23, 2022. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a huge and unexplained delay on the part of respondents in registration of FIR. This contention of the petitioner too is rejected, Court said.
The last ground, though not pleaded in the petition but urged by senior counsel during the course of arguments, that the CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate the cases pertaining to the erstwhile State of J&K is also misconceived in view of judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in cases titled “Kumar Avinav vs. Union of India”, 2023(1) Crimes J&K 455 and “Major. General V.K Sharma & Anr. vs. C.B.I” CRMC No. 248/2016 decided on February 7, 2024, Court said.
With these observations Court do not find any reason to show indulgence for the purpose of quashing the impugned FIR. However, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to conclude the investigation of the case as expeditiously as possible and the petitioner-company is directed to participate in the investigation so as to enable the respondent No.1 to conclude the investigation expeditiously.
