IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Jindal India Thermal Power Limited and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha and Ors. - Opp. Parties
Crl.MC No.2039 of 2017 along with Crl.MC Nos.343, 3059 & 3285 of 2018, 2805, 2806, 3184 & 3185 of 2019 and 13 of 2021
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Forgery and Fabrication - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 447/ 403/ 379/ 406/ 408/ 409/ 420/ 426/ 341/ 109/ 120-B IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, Sections 191/ 192/ 193/ 196/ 463/ 465/ 468/ 471 /120-B/ 420/ 427/ 506 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, Sections 192/ 193/ 196/ 420/ 463/ 465/ 468/ 469 /471 /120-B/ 403 IPC r/w S. 34 of IPC and under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of IT Act 2000, Section 422 IPC r/w S. 120-B and 34 IPC - ICC Case No.33 of 2017, ICC Case No.74 of 2017, ICC Case No.57 of 2018 - The court discussed the allegations of forgery and fabrication of ground level books and measurements by the present Petitioners to create an alternative final bill than the one agreed to by and between the parties as well as illegal encashment of the bank guarantees. The court found that the documents failed on the twin parameters of reliability and trustworthiness. The allegations made in the criminal complaints are prima facie and require a thorough investigation. The court allowed CRLMC No.3184 of 2019 and CRLMC No.3185 of 2019 and quashed ICC Case No.44 of 2019, but dismissed CRLMC No.2039 of 2017, CRLMC No.343 of 2018, CRLMC No.3059 of 2018, CRLMC No.3285 of 2018, CRLMC No.2805 of 2019, CRLMC No.2806 of 2019 and CRLMC No.13 of 2021.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant Company alleged forgery and fabrication of ground level books and measurements by the present Petitioners to create an alternative final bill than the one agreed to by and between the parties as well as illegal encashment of the bank guarantees. The Complainant Company invoked arbitration and assailed the non-payment of the remainder amount as well as disputed the termination of the contracts as well as encashment of the bank guarantees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents failed on the twin parameters of reliability and trustworthiness. The allegations made in the criminal complaints are prima facie and require a thorough investigation. The court allowed CRLMC No.3184 of 2019 and CRLMC No.3185 of 2019 and quashed ICC Case No.44 of 2019, but dismissed CRLMC No.2039 of 2017, CRLMC No.343 of 2018, CRLMC No.3059 of 2018, CRLMC No.3285 of 2018, CRLMC No.2805 of 2019, CRLMC No.2806 of 2019 and CRLMC No.13 of 2021.
Issues: Allegations of forgery and fabrication of ground level books and measurements, illegal encashment of the bank guarantees, and non-payment of the remainder amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The allegations made in the criminal complaints are prima facie and require a thorough investigation. The court allowed CRLMC No.3184 of 2019 and CRLMC No.3185 of 2019 and quashed ICC Case No.44 of 2019, but dismissed CRLMC No.2039 of 2017, CRLMC No.343 of 2018, CRLMC No.3059 of 2018, CRLMC No.3285 of 2018, CRLMC No.2805 of 2019, CRLMC No.2806 of 2019 and CRLMC No.13 of 2021.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) have been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings emanating from ICC Case No.33 of 2017, ICC Case No.74 of 2017, ICC Case No.57 of 2018 pending before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talcher and ICC Case No.44 of 2019 pending before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul. As the petitions involve the similar facts, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present matter are as follows :
ii. The Complainant Company then entered into six Civil engineering work contracts with M/S JITPL between April 2011 to February 2012 for construction of; peripheral roads and drains, internal roads and drains, security sheds, boundary wall, raw water reservoir extension and execution of the balance work left in the Ash Dyke by M/s GSR Ventures Private Limited, all for the said Derang Power Plant. To that end the Complainant Company submitted three bank guarantees for a total sum of Rs. 2.72 Crores towards security/earnest money for the same.
iii. At the relevant point of time, in December 2012, the work pertaining to the construction of the boundary wall was completed, the work pertaining to the construction of security sheds was closed and the work pertaining to the remaining four contracts i.e. construction of; peripheral roads and drains, internal roads and drains, raw water reservoir extension and execution of the balance work left in the Ash Dyke by M/s GSR Ventures Private Limited was underway.
iv. It is the contention of the Complainant Company, that prior to terminating the contracts with the Complainant Company, M/S JITPL maliciously entered into an understanding with one M/s Sinhotia Metals and Minerals Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “M/s SMMPL” and present Petitioner No. 1 in CRLMC No.3285 of 2018 and CRLMC No.13 of 2021) in December 2012 itself, to usurp the work contracts from the Complainant Company at the Derang Power Plant at a rate much higher compared to the one awarded to the Complainant Company.
v. Subsequently, the Complainant Company’s contracts with M/S JITPL were unilaterally terminated on 31.1.2013 and the bank guarantees furnished by the Complainant Company fora total sum of Rs.2.72 Crores were encashed on 29.1.2013 without any prior notice or intimation to the Complainant. The Complainant Company was then asked to draw up its final bills after measurement of its work done till 31.1.2013 and vacate the premises of the Derang Power Plant forthwith.
vi. It is the contention of the Complainant Company that despite its strong protest in relation to the manner of the illegal termination of their contracts as well as the fact that M/s SMMPL had already entered into the work site, the Complainant Company who was by this pushed into a corner, was forced to accept the promise of the officers of M/S JITPL who assured them that the entire work site would get measured and the final bill would be processed within 9 days on the meeting dated 6.2.2013.
vii. Pursuant to the same, a joint verification of the work done till 31.01.2013 as well as a measurement of the materials of th
Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque
Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal
Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar
State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.