Suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from relief; courts should not quash FIRs unless exceptional circumstances exist.

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, ‘the CrPC’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.45 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016 pending on the file of P.S. Kowtala, Kowtala Mandal, Adilabad District.

Facts of the case:-

3. The petitioners herein are A.1, A.2 and A.4. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 406, 420, 447 and 504, 120-B and 294 (b) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). On the complaint dated 27.04.2016, lodged by 2^nd respondent, P.S. Kowtala have registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2016 against the petitioners herein and A.3.

4. As per the complaint dated 27.04.2016 of 2^nd respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioner and A.3 are as that it is in the business of construction of multi storeyed buildings, colonies, complexes and housing projects etc. On 05.08.2009, Sri Ramaiah, represented M/s. Sri Chennakesava Constructions (for short, ‘CK constructions’) approached 2^nd respondent, requested to execute the contract which was awarded to them by the 1^st petitioner. On 09.07.2008, there was a contract agreement entered between the 1^st petitioner and CK Constructions for carrying on works of Pranahitha Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme (for short, ‘PCLIS’) and excavation of gravity canal including formation of embankments, construction of Sluices Cross Massonry and Cross Drainage works, lining etc. 1^st petitioner company was awarded with the contract for PCLIS – Package I – detailed investigation and preparation of Design and Drawings, Estimates, Land Plan Schedules and Excavation of gravity canal including formation of embankments, constructions of CM & CD works, lining etc. complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM 15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). 1^st petitioner had agreed to give the above works of contracts to CK constructions on back to back basis with total responsibility for execution of the contract in toto. As CK constructions, could not carry on the works awarded to them, they represented by Sri. Ramaiah entered into a contract with 2^nd respondent. In pursuance to the agreement, 2^nd respondent has been carrying on the works since 2009. 1^st petitioner knows very well that 2^nd respondent is carrying on the works in the place of CK constructions. 1^st petitioner is well aware that 2^nd respondent has entered into an agreement with CK constructions. The personnel of 1^st petitioner were visiting the site and constantly supervising the works carried out by 2^nd respondent. 1^st petitioner was guiding 2^nd respondent in carrying on the works and further informing with regard to the payment schedule. Part of the payments were released in favour of 2^nd respondent. In fact, 2^nd respondent has to receive a sum of Rs.20 Crores, from 1^st petitioner and CK constructions. 2^nd respondent has executed the work and incurred total expenditure of Rs.90 Crores in executing the work. 1^st petitioner has received total amount but in collusion with CK constructions, are not paying the amounts to 2^nd respondent. They have entered into conspiracy, evading the payments of the 2^nd respondent even after repeated requests to CK constructions to pay the amount but it was later discovered that CK constructions did not receive the payments. 2^nd respondent enquired with 1^st petitioner w