Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 314/2025
Praveen Jain Vs. RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD
PS (Railway Sarai Rohilla)
06.01.2026
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 175(3) BNSS
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Be put up at 04:00 pm for orders.
(Rangat Ghirra)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/06.01.2026
At 04:00 pm
Present: None.
Present order shall dispose of an application U/s
175(3) BNSS filed by the complainant which is also
accompanied by a complaint .
In a nutshell, it is the case of the complainant that
he, a senior citizen, was cheated by the proposed accused No.1
company through its agents accused No.2 and 3. It is alleged that
the proposed accused No.2 and 3 misrepresented themselves as
officials of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of
India (hereinafter IRDAI) and mis-sold the complainant a policy
of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. whereas they had
promised that they shall provide him policy of PNB Metlife India
Insurance Co. Ltd. and a policy of Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
by promising return of 35-40% yearly on the said policies and
that the same can be withdrawn in full in the beginning of the 6th
year. However, when the policy documents were received by the
complainant, he found out that the policies did not contain any
provision promising any such returns. It is further mentioned in
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
the complaint that the premium paid for the Max Life Insurance
Co. Ltd. Ltd. was returned when the said facts came to the
knowledge of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant
contacted the proposed accused No.2 and 3 to get his premium
refunded but to no avail. It is further alleged the complainant sent
legal notice dated 05.03.2024 to the proposed accused No.1.
Accused no.1 replied to the said notice on 30.04.2024, stating
that the complainant did not cancel the policy within the free
look cancellation period and denied the allegations. It is further
alleged that the complainant approached the police regarding his
complaint which disclosed a cognisable offence but the police
failed to take any action. Hence, this application.
Action taken report was called from the police. As
per the action taken report report, an enquiry was conducted. It
was found that the premium paid for the Max Life Insurance Co.
Ltd. Ltd. was returned. Further, the complainant did not cancel
the policy of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. within the
free cancellation period despite the same being delivered to the
complainant within time. The report further mentions that no
cognizable offence is made out in the present case.
I have considered the allegations and the action
taken report.
Before deciding the instant application. It is
imperative to be conscious of the considerations which are
required to be taken into account while deciding an application
u/s 156 (3) CrP.C/ (now 175(3) BNSS). In Ms. Skipper
beverages P. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the
circumstances as to when the powers of magistrate U/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C ought to be exercised, has been explained. It was held
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
that:
"Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct
police to register case and initiate investigation but
this power had to be exercised judiciously not in
mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations
are not very serious and complainant himself in
possession of evidence to prove allegation, there
should be no need to pass order U/s 156 Cr.P.C.
But,cases where Magistrate is of view that nature of
allegation is such that complainant himself may not be
in position to collect, and produce evidence before court,
and interest of justice demand that police should step
into to help complainant, police assistance can be
taken."
In the present case, the matter mainly pertains to
allegations that an insurance policy was mis-sold to the
complainant by proposed accused No.2 and 3. There are multiple
other efficacious remedies when insurance policy is sold my
agents by misrepresentation. Be that as it may, from the facts of
the case, this court is of the opinion that assistance of
investigation agency is not required in the present case for the
collection of evidence as the identity of the accused persons is
already known to the complainant and he already has all the
documentary evidence in his possession. Moreover, all the facts
and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant.
If in future any need arises for police assistance, same can be
taken under section 225 BNSS / 202 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the
present application under section 175(3) BNSS is dismissed.
Be put up for arguments on cognizance of the
present complaint on 27.03.2026.
(Rangat Ghirra)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/06.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --