IMPORTANT POINT
A complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating can proceed even if it arises from a contractual dispute, provided it meets the prima facie standard for criminal offences.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

Heard Mr.R.Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1.

2. By filing this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 94c/2015 under Section 406/420/447/294/506 IPC pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tinsukia.

3. The fact of the case, in brief, is that proforma opposite party being proprietor of M/S Huto Trading Agency, entered into an agreement with Government of Arunachal Pradesh for construction of works and maintenance of road from old Abali to Ingino via Harupahar, Arango and Denlo, Arunachal Pradesh under PMGSY by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Roing, Arunachal Pradesh and accordingly, an agreement was executed to do that work.

3. The proforma opposite party No. 2 Teli Kechi executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of opposite party No.1 and both the opposite parties entered into an agreement to complete the balance works. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 approached the petitioner for making payment to him in respect of the work done on the basis of power of attorney and the petitioner subsequently made payment to power of attorney holder i.e. opposite party No. 1. The further case of the opposite party No. 1 is that on 31.08.2015, at about

4. 30 pm, while he was sitting in his shop, the petitioner threatened him and accordingly, the opposite party No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and the opposite party No.2.

4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on bare perusal of the complaint filed by the opposite party No.1, it reveals that no case is made out under Section 406/420/447/294/506/34 IPC. But the learned trial court erroneously took cognizance of the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a government employee and discharged the official duty at the relevant time and as such, he is not personally liable even if any case is made out by opposite party No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh through the Executive Engineer RWD entered into a contract with M/S Huto Trading Agency of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 2007. The opposite party No.1 is a stranger to that agreement. The complaint petition of opposite party No.1 disclosed that the original contractor (opposite party No.2) sub-let some portion of the work to him without any authority of law despite prohibition in the contract. The payments for work had also not been made to any other person except the contractor in terms of the agreement clause. As the opposite party No.1 is stranger to the agreement, as such, he has no such right to demand for payment from the Government or from the petitioner. If the opposite party No.1 has any grievance relating to payment, then he may claim either from the contractor or from the Government of Arunachal Pradesh but he has no right to make any claim against the petitioner who discharged his official duty and not acted in his personal capacity. Accordingly, the complaint of the opposite party No.1 is baseless and based on concocted story and filed with malafide intention to extract the public money from the petitioner as well as Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

6. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party filed the complaint case against the petitioner by suppressing the material facts and also making false statements therein inasmuch as the opposite party No.1 despite the knowledge, has not disclosed that the contractor i.e. opposite party No.2 has cancelled the power of attorney given to him and appoint another attorney holder namely, Rajju Lenggi. In absence of challenging the power of attorney, the opposite party No.1 has no legal right to make any claim in relation to the contract