1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 234/2014 dated 22.8.2014 of Police Station, Chhoti Sadari, District-Pratapgarh for the offence punishable under Section 8B of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') and Sections 283, 336 and 420 I.P.C.

2. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2-Project Director, PWD, NH Division, Nimbahera, District-Chittorgarh while contending that the contract of construction of national highway, details of which are provided in the F.I.R., has been awarded to the petitioner-Chetak Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the construction company') and as per the terms and conditions of the contract during the construction of highway, the construction company is required to maintain traffic worthiness and safety thereof. In the impugned F.I.R. certain discrepancies are detailed out to demonstrate that the Construction Company has failed to take all safety measures which it required to maintain during the construction of the National Highway and due to that there exists danger to the public safety at large and the people passing on that national highway are facing great difficulty. It is alleged that the representatives of Construction Company are guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 8B of the Act of 1956 and Sections 283, 336 and 420 I.P.C.

3. While challenging the impugned F.I.R., learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare reading of contents of the impugned F.I.R. no offence as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. is made out against the Construction Company. It is contended that even if it is assumed that the Construction Company has failed to take certain safety measures as per the conditions of contract then also it is only a case of non-compliance of the terms and condition of contract and in no manner it can be said that the Construction Company is guilty of commission of any offence.

4. It is also argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that essential ingredients to constitute offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. are absolutely missing in the complaint and, therefore, the police has also erred in registering the impugned F.I.R. against the Construction Company for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. In support of above argument, reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Thermax Ltd. (M/s.) & Ors. v. K.M. Johny & Ors., reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 869.

5. It is also contended that the National Highways Authority of India never issued any notice or warning to the Construction Company regarding the discrepancies in maintaining safety measures and, therefore, the action of filing impugned F.I.R. by the official of National Highways Authority of India is illegal. in the strength of above arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned F.I.R.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned F.I.R.

7. Sections 8A and 8B of the Act of 1956 reads as under

"8A. Power of Central Government to enter into agreements for development and maintenance of National Highways. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development and maintenance of the whole or any part of a National Highways.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the person referred to in sub-section (1) is entitled to collect and retain fees at such rate, for services or benefits rendered by him as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify having regard to the expenditure involved in building, maintenance, management and operation of the whole or part of such National Highways, interest on the capital invested, reasonable return, the volume of traffic and the period of such agreement.

(3