JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, appearing for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5.

2. By filing this composite petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is one of the accused, has prayed for quashing of the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 5, being EOW ME C.R. No. 6/13 under Sections 403, 406, 408, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 475, 477A, 34, 120B IPC, which is being investigated by E.O.W. Unit- III, Crime Branch, Mumbai.

3. From the materials available on record, specifically from Annexure-P/11 of this application, it is made to appear that the complaint statement dated 17.05.2013, given by one Mr. Jaysingh Liladhar Ashar, an employee of the respondent no. 5, i.e. Gammon India Ltd., which was recorded by the investigating agency, has been treated as an FIR. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appearing parties are ad idem at the Bar.

4. The complaint statement is lengthy consisting of 16 typed pages. Therefore, this order is not burdened with the narration of the entire complaint. It would suffice to mention that the sum and substance of the FIR is that about 15-16 instances have been narrated of how the petitioner in connivance and involvement of some others, named therein, had prepared false bills, fabricated and manufactured bills, and fake bills and submitted them along with supporting documents and obtained approval from the Head Office of the respondent no. 5 at Mumbai and misappropriated money of his employer, i.e. respondent no. 5, which was transferred from Mumbai. It is not in dispute that the said money pertained for the contract work which was being executed by the respondent no. 5 at Seppa, located in East Kameng District in Arunachal Pradesh. The amount misappropriated would roughly add-up to Rs.2,93,28,494/-.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to voluminous documents appended to the writ petition to project that the petitioner had not misappropriated any money from his employer. It was also projected that some under-ground elements had served demand notice to him, for which he was absent from the work-site and had also applied for police protection and that on his complaint, some under-ground elements were also arrested. It was also projected that the petitioner was also ill at the relevant point of time, but when he had resumed his duty, he was served with show cause notice and he also came to know that the respondent no. 5 had lodged an FIR against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had meticulously referred to the contents of 19 voluminous annexures of about 176 pages and 31 grounds on which this application was presented. It was also submitted that the petitioner was illegally framed by his employer company, i.e. the respondent no. 5 to hide their inability to pay various contractors and suppliers, most of whom had filed suits for recovery of money from the respondent no. 5, which would justify that the petitioner had made genuine purchases of material, equipment, etc., and genuinely availed services from various vendors and suppliers. It was also submitted that the money receipts obtained from vendors and service providers, including Geology and Mining Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh would be a testimony of lawful transactions made by the petitioner in his capacity as empowered employee of the respondent no. 5, holding a valid Power of attorney for discharging his assigned duties. It may be mentioned herein that no purpose would be served in burdening this order by narration of contents of voluminous documents and list of events/ dates. The reason therefore, is assigned in the later part of the order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Sections 177 to 188 of t