SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 549

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Ahmed Ali Ayubi, S/o - Lt. Ahad Ali - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Arunachal Pradesh. Represented by Addl. P.P. - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. No. 03(AP) of 2023
Decided On : 03-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B. K. Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. L. Hage, Addl. P.P., Mr. K. Tama, Adv.

Headnote:

Cr.P.C. - Zimmanama - Section 397, 401, 482 - 120B/467/468/471/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in Zimmanama No.50/2022.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned JMFC, Yupia in Zimmanama Case No.50/2022, alleging that the order was passed without considering the facts and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner also raised concerns about the legality of the seizure of the bank account and the compliance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the zimmanama was allowed in favor of the respondent No.2 without proper consideration of the facts and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court also noted concerns about the legality of the seizure of the bank account and the compliance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the zimmanama order, the seizure of the bank account, and the compliance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the zimmanama was allowed without proper consideration of the facts and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court also noted concerns about the legality of the seizure of the bank account and the compliance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that no illegality was committed by the learned Court below while allowing the zimmanama in favor of the respondent No.2 under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. The interim order dated 09.02.2023 stands vacated.

 

 1 .     Heard Mr. B. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This is an application filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh [in short ld. JMFC, Yupia] in Zimmanama No.50/2022.

3. The brief fact of the case is that; on 15.11.2022, one Kalley Rijuju/respondent No.3 resident of village- Nabolong, under the Police Station-Lada/Seppa, East Kameng District lodged a written First Information Report(FIR) before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, alleging inter-alia with the allegation of criminal conspiracy, cheating against the present petitioner which was accordingly registered under Itanagar P. S. Case No. 0281/2022 under Sections 120B/467/468/471/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the petitioner is not all involved in the alleged offence as stated in the FIR dated 15.11.2022. In fact, the petitioner has stated that the entire case is completely different than alleged in the aforesaid FIR and brings in brief the following facts;

3.1. One company, namely M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited, having its registered office at A 309, Shoppers Orbit, Alandi Road, Vishrantwadi, Pune, Maharashtra– 411015, has been allotted a contract work, namely, “Construction of High Altitude Hill Road from Ladda to Besai in North East Kameng District on EPC Mode”. On being allotted, the aforesaid contract work, the M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited entered into an agreement with another company namely, M/s. Ramjo Pordung having its registered office at Type 1 Colony, Seppa, East Kameng District, whereby, it has been agreed that M/s. Ramjo Pordung company will execute the contract work on behalf of and/or sub-contractor of the M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited.

3.2. Thereafter, the said M/s. Ramjo Pordung company after executing a considerable amount of said contract work; requested another company, namely, M/s. Henderson Construction India Private Limited [represented by the present petitioner] in consultation with the said M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited, to execute the remaining contract work. Accordingly, an agreement in this regard was also executed between the parties i.e the petitioner’s company and M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited. Thus, the said contract work has been executed by the petitioner’s company [i.e. the Henderson Construction India Private Limited] as a sub-contractor under an agreement with the satisfaction of all concerned.

3.3. After getting the sub-contract, the petitioner’s company entered into another agreement with one M/s. S & Y Builder and Developments represented by the respondent No.2 in the present petition; as local partner for construction of the said High-Altitude Hill Road from Ladda to Basai. As per the agreement dated 29.10.2022, the respondent No.2 credited an amount of Rs.4,15,00,000 (Rupees four crores fifteen lakhs) only to the petitioner’s company i.e. M/s. Henderson Construction India Private Limited and the said amount was deposited on 05.11.2022 into the bank account of the petitioner’s company maintained in IndusInd Bank.

3.4. Subsequent to all those developments; some disputes arose amongst the petitioner’s company, M/s. S & Y Builder and Developments [represented by the respondent No.2] and M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited. However, all the parties were agreed to sort out their disputes amicably amongst them; the petitioner’s company had sent notice Invoking Arbitration dated 23.11.2022 to the M/s. S & Y Builder and Developments [represented by the respondent No.2] and to the M/s. Suwarna Buildcon Private Limited which have duly been received by the respective companies.

3.5. Meanwhile, the resp

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top