IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of conducting the necessary enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before summoning the accused persons, to ensure that the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of alleged offences.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.'), the petitioners seek quashing of summoning order dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (`learned Magistrate') in Complaint Case bearing No. 15987/2018, titled as `Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes Pvt Ltd. vs. Premco Rail Engineers Ltd. & Ors.', filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and quashing of entire proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant/respondent no. 2, are that the complainant company i.e. Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and the accused company/petitioner no. 1i.e. Premco Rail Engineers Ltd. had executed a joint venture agreement dated 10.06.2011 and promoted a joint venture concern namely M/s. Premco and Vardhaman for the purpose of applying for tender/bid dated 13.06.2011 with Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (`RVNL') for construction of sheds structures, porta blocks, water supply arrangement, general electric works,etc. and the said work contract had been granted in favour of the joint venture by RVNL. The complainant company had also issued a power of attorney dated 10.06.2011 to its lead partner of the joint venture i.e. accused company to act on behalf of the joint venture in connection with the execution of the agreement with RVNL. It is stated that the joint venture had opened two bank accounts, one in Delhi and another in Kolkata. Thereafter, when the work had formally been awarded to the joint venture, both the companies had entered into a fresh joint venture agreement dated 12.09.2011 vide which the sharing ratio between the complainant company and the accused company had been decided as 29:71% respectively. As per the said agreement, out of total value of contract of Rs. 98,17,51,383/- awarded to the joint venture, the complainant company had to discharge and perform works amounting to Rs. 28,31,31,865/- and the accused company had to discharge and perform works valued at Rs. 69,86,19,473/- and both the companies were to execute their respective share of works and raise bills on RVNL individually through the joint venture. As per complainant, the accused company had agreed with RVNL on its own to provide a discount @ 3.76% on the scheduled rates without discussion with the complainant, however, the complainant company had not agreed for grant of such rebate/discount and for this purpose, another joint venture agreement dated 20.09.2011 had been executed whereby it was agreed between the two companies that the accused company would bear the rebate/discount agreed by it to the RVNL and shall reimburse the amount equivalent to 3.76% so deducted by RVNL from all the bills relating to works performed by the complainant company and the accused company shall release all payments credited into the bank account of joint venture at Kolkata branch in respect of the bills to be raised by complainant company through joint venture on RVNL along with reimbursement of rebate/discount of 3.76%. As alleged by the complainant, the intention of the accused persons had become fraudulent and they had raised false and fabricated bills on the RVNL in respect of the works completed by the complainant company and had got released a total amount of Rs. 148 lacs (approximately) on the basis of such false and fabricated bills from RVNL and had illegally withdrawn the same from the bank account of joint venture. It is further alleged that the accused persons had grossly defaulted in filing the income tax, sales tax returns, and deposits of various tax and duties with the government departments due to which TIN of the joint venture had been suspended by the sales tax department. It was also alleged that the accused persons had not released the C-Forms in respect of building material worth Rs. 15.2 crores which was supplied by the complaint company to RVNL in respect of the contract. It was fur