High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
KAVINDRA KIYAWAT - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 27734 of 2019
Decided On : 21-09-2020
Petitioner, a Collector, Ujjain, sought quashing of FIR alleging misappropriation of funds and non-deposit of license fee by Aviation Academy, which was permitted to use Datana Air Strip, Ujjain. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and could not be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Collector, Ujjain, sought quashing of FIR alleging misappropriation of funds and non-deposit of license fee by Aviation Academy, which was permitted to use Datana Air Strip, Ujjain. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and could not be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and could not be quashed.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and could be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and could not be quashed. The Court noted that the Aviation Academy was permitted to use the Datana Air Strip, Ujjain subject to various conditions mentioned in the agreement. The Aviation Academy used the Datana Airstrip regularly and extensively without fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the agreement as a result of which the State Government was required to undertake the maintenance work of worth Rs. 292.39 Lakhs. Further due to non-payment of Night Parking Charges, a huge loss has been caused to the State Government, which is a matter of investigation.
Final Decision: The High Court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and could not be quashed.
ORDER : – On account of difference of opinion between the Hon’ble Judges comprising Division Bench on 28-7-2020, this matter has been listed before this Bench after obtaining Administrative Sanction of Hon’ble the Chief Justice by order dated 3-9-2020, passed under Rule 11 of Chapter IV of the High Court of M. P. Rules, 2008.
2. The facts of this case have already been mentioned in detail in order dated 28-7-2020. Therefore, in order to avoid repetition, only those facts would be referred in short, which are necessary for disposal of this case.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashment of impugned F.I.R. dated 24-11-2019 lodged against him seeking the following relief(s) :
(a) Allow this Petition and quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 0282 of 2019 dated 24-11-2019 (Annexure A/1) and all actions pursuant thereto, and;
(b) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
4. The necessary facts in short are that an F.I.R. has been registered by Special Police Establishment (Lokayaut), Bhopal bearing Crime No. 0282 of 2019 against 16 persons, including the petitioner for offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
5. The facts leading to the registration of the impugned F.I.R. are that by order dated 18th Aug., 2006 issued by the Aviation Ministry, State of M. P., permission was granted to enter into an agreement with M/s Yash Air Ltd. for the use of Datana Air Strip (Ujjain) on the conditions that M/s Yash Air Ltd. would maintain the air strip with all the security equipments, Taxi Track, Boundary Wall etc. under the supervision and control of Collector, Ujjain, through State P.W.D. Department. The order dated 18-8-2006 by which permission was granted on certain conditions reads as under :
6. Accordingly, the State of Madhya Pradesh entered into an agreement dated 31-8-2006 with M/s Yash Air Ltd. thereby granting permission to M/s Yash Air Ltd. (Which is a private body) to use the Datana Air Strip situated at Ujjain on the conditions mentioned in the agreement itself. It is not out of place to mention here that originally the agreement was executed for a period of 7 (Seven years) on payment of yearly license fee of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs only (` One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with incremental enhancement of 5% per year. Thereafter, the State of M. P., by its letter dated 17-10-2008, issued a corrigendum that it has been decided that the period of agreement should be read as 10 (Ten) years in place of 7 (Seven) years. Thus, it is clear that M/s Yash Air Ltd. was granted permission for using the Datana Air Strip of Ujjain (M. P.) for a period of 10 years from the year 2006. The agreement was signed by the Director, Aviation, on behalf of the State Government. The copy of the agreement reads as under :
7. It is not out of place to mention here that, the name of M/s Yash Air Ltd., Indore was subsequently changed to M/s Centaur Aviation Academy Ltd. (In short Aviation Academy). By letter dated 27-11-2012, M/s Centaur Aviation Academy Ltd. informed the Director Aviation Department, State of M. P., about the change in name. The Director, Aviation Department by its letter dated 21-1-2013, sought opinion from the Deputy Secretary, Aviation Department, State of M. P., as to whether, the name of M/s Yash Air Ltd can be changed in the record or not? Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Aviation, State of M. P., by its letter dated 4-10-2013, informed the Director, Aviation, that there is no obstruction in permitting the change of name of M/s Yash Air Ltd. in the records. Accordingly, The Director Aviation by its letter dated 8-10-2013 informed the Vice President, Aviation Academy, that in the agreement which was executed between M/s Yash Air Ltd. and the State Government for use of Datana Air Strip, Ujjain, the name of M/s Yash Air Ltd. would be read as M/s Centaur Aviation Limited. Thus, it is cl
Mahavir Prasad Gupta vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta
Teeja Devi vs. State of Rajasthan
Ajay Kumar Das vs. State of Jharkhand
State of A. P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh
M. N. Ojha vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav
Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
State of T. N. vs. R. Vasantjhi Stanley
Munshiram vs. State of Rajasthan
State of Orissa vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan
State of Telangana vs. Habeeb Abdullah Jeelani
Vijayander Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan
Mohd. Akram Siddiqui vs. State of Bihar
Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora
M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
Sangeeta Agrawal vs. State of U. P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.