The court emphasized that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code were absent, and the lodging of the FIR appeared to be attended mainly with the ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on the accused petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 were heard.

2. This petition u/s 482 CrPC has been filed praying for quashing the FIR dated 27-10- 2020 and the criminal proceeding in Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 825/2020 registered u/s 406/420 IPC.

3. The factual background of the FIR and the criminal proceeding sought to be quashed are that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Meghalaya Infratech Ltd. under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'Insolvency Code'). The petitioner was appointed as resolution professional under the provisions of the Insolvency Code in the matter of Meghalaya Infratech Ltd. by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench by its order dated 28-08-2019.

4. A meeting of the Committee of Creditors (COC) was scheduled to be held on 11-02- 2020. All the resolution applicants including the Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (in short "PPIPL") were advised by the notice dated 06-02-2020 about the agenda of the COC meeting to be held on 11-02-2020. Since the agenda item could not be completed, the COC decided to adjourn the meeting to next day and accordingly, it was decided that the meeting would be held on the next day, i.e., 12-02-20 at 10.30 am at the same place. The resolution applicant Mr. N. Dhar increased his bid amount from Rs. 54 crores to Rs. 54.3 crores + CIRP cost on 12-02-2020 and its plan was approved by 100% voting in the COC meeting on 12-02- 2020. Despite being aware that the resolution plan had to be finalized and negotiations were to be carried out, the PPIPL remained absent on the meeting held on 12.02.2020. The PPIPL allegedly failed to meet the time line and also failed to submit final revised plan removing the defects therein and only submitted a revised offer and not a revised resolution plan on 14-02- 2020 with a marginal increase in its bid. However, the meeting of the COC supported the plan submitted by Mr. N. Dhar and all the creditors were aware about the revised offer submitted by PPIPL. The members of the COC were fully aware about the revised offer submitted by PPIPL on 14-02-2020, inasmuch as, copies of the same were sent through e-mail to all the members. It has been stated that being fully aware and with full knowledge of the revised offer of the PPIPL, the COC meeting approved the plan submitted by Mr. N. Dhar. The PPIPL filed an application against the resolution plan approved by the meeting of the COC praying for a direction to the CIRP to take on record and to consider the revised offer submitted by it through e-mail on 14-02-2020, which was rejected by the learned NCLT, Guwahati Bench by its order dated 18-03-2020. The NCLT by its order dated 18-05-2020 approved the resolution plan of Mr. N. Dhar (H1 bidder), which was approved by the meeting of the COC.

5. The orders dated 18-03-2020 and 18-05-2020 passed by the NCLT, Guwahati Bench was challenged before the NCLT, New Delhi and the NCLT, New Delhi by order dated 19-10- 2020 set aside both the orders passed by the NCLT, Guwahati Bench and remanded the matter with direction to the CIRP to resume from the stage of consideration of the resolution plan. It was also directed that the resolution professional would place the resolution plan of H1 and H2 bidders, besides the revised resolution plan of the appellant (PPIPL) before the committee of the creditors for consideration. After the judgment of the NCLT, Delhi, the respondent No. 2, who was a suspended director of M/S Meghalaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. lodged the FIR with the Paltan Bazar Police Station on 27-10-2020, on the basis of which, police registered Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 825/2020 u/s 406/420 IPC.

6. It was alleged in the FIR that the bid offered by PPIPL was the highest. However, on the pretext of minor deviation on the part of the highest bidder, the petitioner illegally final