Point of Law: Quash of FIR - A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. This petition, under Section, 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Shri Pulak Dev S/o Late P.C. Dev of Subarnarekha Apartment, AD-1/1A-Rajarhat Road, Baguiati, Kalkata for quashing the FIR dated 26.06.2000 and Charge-Sheet No. 03/2004, dated 28.05.2004, and criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 05/2000/294, under section 120(B)/420 Indian Penal Code pending before the JMFC, Tawang.

2. Heard Mr. K. Lollen, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. U. Bori, the learned Addl. PP for the state of Arunachal Pradesh. Also heard Mr. L. Perme, the learned Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 2, i.e. Executive Engineer (power), Tawang Electrical Division.

3. The factual background leading to filing of this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is adumbrated herein-below:

“In 18.03.1993, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh entered into an agreement with M/s SPML Infra Limited (hereinafter, FIRM) for construction, supply of commissioning of the Nurarnang Hydel Power Project at Tawang, including three generating units at a consideration of Rs. 24.96 Crore (Approximately). Thereafter, the firm executed the project on turned key basis including construction of all the civil infrastructures and supply of the Turbine runner sets and equipment in Tawang District, under the Department of Power, Arunachal Pradesh.

Thereafter, the project was commissioned in the year, 1996. Before installation of Turbine runners, the Power Department received test and guarantee certificate, from the Turbine runner/supplier vide letter dated 13.04.1995, and as such there was bona-fide belief that the supplied turbine runners were of standard quality as per agreement and on receipt of the certificate, turbine runners were installed at the site. The project started functioning from 1996. Thereafter, the department has issued certificate certifying satisfaction over commissioning in the year 1997. After 4 years of commissioning of the project, in the year 2000, some defects were found in the 3 turbines, and on complaint of the department, the firm replaced the defective turbines, but, again some problem arose and after frequent breakdown of turbines, a broken piece of turbine was sent for testing and it was found that it does not conformed with the specification incorporated in the agreement, as the composition of runner found to be containing 5% nickel and 7.5% chromium against 4% and 14% respectively, as per the agreement. But, in view of the letter dated 07.03.2000, it was confirmed that turbine runner supplied by manufacturer was made of stainless steel with the approximate contain of 4% nickel and 14% chromium as per the specification in the agreement which does not tally with the test report of various testing agencies. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer (power), Tawang Electrical Division lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Tawang on 09.06.2000, against the Managing Director and Director of the firm alleging, inter alia, amongst others that the company provides inferior quality materials in manufacturing the turbines, in contravention with the provision of contract as the specific percentage of nickel and chromium required to contain in the equipment supplied, resulting frequent damage of runner turbine bucket.

Upon the said complaint, the O.C. Jang Police Station registered a case being Jang P.S. Case No. 05/2000, under Section 420/120(B) of Indian Penal Code corresponding G.R. Case No. 05/2000/294. Thereafter, the case was handed over to the crime branch (SIT), Itanagar, for further investigation which culminated in submission of charge-sheet dated 28.05.2004, under Section 420/120(B) Indian Penal Code before JMFC, Tawang, against the petitioner and Managing Director and Director of the firm SPML and some other government officers. Accordingly, the learned Court below has issued process to the petitioner to appear before him and to stand trial.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this application und