The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the accused for alleged forgery and conspiracy, emphasizing that serious allegations of financial misconduct warrant investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.

Since both these petitions are filed for quashing of a common FIR, hence heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment.

1. RULE. Learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, present petitions are taken up for final hearing.

PROLOGUE:

2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 14370 of 2020 is filed by accused No. 2 - Harshadbhai Govindbhai Patel, Account Officer, Gujarat Council of Education Research & Training, Gandhinagar (for short "GCERT") and Criminal Misc. Application No. 16043 of 2020 is filed by accused No. 1 - Mr. Nikunj R. Thekadi, Director of Reliable Art Printery Pvt. Ltd. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") with prayer to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being CR No. 11216008200118 of 2020 dated 24.03.2020 registered with Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") alongwith all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The brief facts as culled out from the petitions are as follows:

The accused No. 1 - Reliable Art Printery Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner of CR.MA No. 16043 of 2020) [hereinafter referred to as "accused No. 1") had applied for contract of printing work of various posters, folders, booklets, books, etc. to be carried out by GCERT along with six other contractors. The technical bids of the accused No. 1 and one Gujarat Offset Private Limited alone were found to be qualified. Price bids of both these contractors were opened. It was found that the price quoted by the accused No. 1 for various printing works was lower than that of Gujarat Offset Private Limited. The accused No. 1 was given such work and has also executed the same. From time to time, the accused No. 1 raised bills of such work done, which were cleared and paid.

3.1. The entire controversy arises in view of the issue taken up by a public interest litigant viz. Mr. Prakash Kapadia alleging that the accused No. 1 was made gross over- payments and the accused No. 1 was paid double the price quoted than agreed between the parties. In short, the controversy is with respect to the rates quoted by the accused No. 1 for printing on two sides of the same page. For example in case of multi-colour posters, folders, etc, the accused No. 1 had quoted Rs. 0.27 paise per page for 1000 copies including cost of papers for single side whereas for the same item, if the printing was to be done on both sides of a page, the accused No. 1 had quoted Rs. 0.29 paise. The accused No. 1 contended that such quoting of Rs. 0.29 paise is per page per side and the accused No. 1 was entitled to remainder of Rs. 0.58 paise per page when the printing is carried out on both the sides. The case of Government is that even when the printing was done on two sides of the page, the accused No. 1 was awarded contract at an agreed rate of Rs. 0.29 paise only per page, printing on both sides. Thereafter, acting on the report of the CAG, respondent No. 2 herein thought it fit to initiate appropriate proceedings against accused No. 1 and its Directors. According to the report of CAG, the accused No. 1 Company recovered an excess amount of Rs. 6.90 Crore from respondent No. 2 by indulging into alleged illegalities. In such circumstances, respondent No. 2 issued show-cause notice to the accused No. 1 calling upon to show-cause as to why the accused No. 1 Company should not be blacklisted and why an amount of Rs. 6.90 Crore should not be recovered. All these proceedings took place way back in the year 2016 to 2020.

3.2. Respondent No. 2 filed the impugned FIR against petitioners herein alleging that