WRIT PETITION 2461/2005 on 9 December 2004

WP(C) 2461/2005BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH

Heard Mr. P N Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.[2]This writ petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R foistedagainst the petitioner under Section 120-B/468/506/34 IPC which was registered as Panbazar P.S Case No. 106/2005. A copy of the F.I.R is annexed at Annexure-A/10 to the writ petition. The said F.I.R is reproduced herein below for better appreciation. To The Officer-in-Charge,Panbazar Police Station,Guwahati-781 001.

Dated Ghy the, 21st March, 2005.

FILING OF FIR

Subject:-1) Criminal conspiracy for fraudulently taking decision to hand over Public property owned by the Assam State Text Book Production and Publication Corporation Limited situated in Panbazar near Over bridge to M/S Buds Creation Pvt.Ltd., Managing Director, Manoj Kr. Jalan. 2)Life threat given by Shri Akshay Mazumdar, Managing Director, ASTPC and Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan, Managing Director, Buds Creation Pvt. Lt.Sir, I was an employee of above Corporation as manager (Establishment) and was looking after the official works related to proposed Construction of multistoried Commercial cum Office Complex w.e.f. 09.12.2004 upto 12.01.2005 in addition to my other normal duties. Suring the Techno Commercial Bid on 31.12.2004 which started from 2.30 P.M. I noticed that M/S Buds Creation (P) Ltd. was not eligible for participation in 2nd price Bid as his documents are manipulated and he has not completed a single project of Rs. 5 crores as need and has worked as Supervisory by changing his commission Rs. 10 lacs. The matter was pointed out that Balance Sheet 31.03.2004 is not audited and various irregularities exist which should be pointed in the Board meeting dated 12.10.2005 then ManagingDirector threatened me and warned me to remove from service on 12.01.2005 it was decided to allot the work to M/S Buds Creation (P) Ltd. The present ManagingDirector Shri Akshay Mazumdar sent one Assamese boy of age 32-33 years who threatened me to face dire consequences if allotted work is disrupted on 12.01.2005in the evening on query said person told that he is a business partner of M./SBuds Creation (P) Ltd. but it may not be genuine.

Seeing no other alternative I decided to resign from the Corporation & Idecided give one notice on 25.01.2005 as Managing Director was harassing me and was continuously issuing orders to sent me outside Head quarter, Guwahati. So that allotment work is not jeopardized. I was released from Corporation in advance instead of 31.03.2005 on 28.02.2005. He maligned my image by publishingan advertisement on 01.03.2005 in daily news paper ’Agradoot’ showing that I have been terminated from my service after serving from 04.02.2005 upto 28.02.2005 but in reality I served the Corporation w.e.f. 05.02.2004 upto 28.02.2005 and he filed on Caveat by wasting Corporation’s money.

Now my family life, my life is not safe as all the matter is in public knowledge.

Yours faithfully,

( Kamalesear Das.) ,Ex-Minister(Establishment)ASTPCJantia, Near D.P.I Office, Janakpur,Jantia Path, Guwahati-781 019. —

[3]Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no case has been made out under Section 468 of the IPC regarding the allegation against the petitioner. What is alleged in the aforesaid FIR is that one of the bidders in a tender namely, M/S Buds Creation (P) Ltd. was not eligible for participation in2nd price Bid as his documents were manipulated and has not completed a single project of Rs. 5 Crores as needed and has worked as Supervisor by charginghis commission Rs. 10 lacs. Even if the allegations against the said firm is taken to be true, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is involved with the aforesaid manipulation.

[4]Secondly, as regards Section 506 of IPC it has been stated that the petitioner had threatened the complainant through one boy with dire consequences if allotted work is disrupted. The learned counsel pointed out the aforesaid provision of Section 506 of IPC is a cognizable offence and stated that under Section 155(2) of Cr. PC, no cognizance could be taken by the police without the order of the Magistrate. In the present case no such order was obtained from the concerned Magistrate and the police initiated the aforesaid process by registering as case under 506 of IPC.

[5]The Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Haryana & Ors. -vs- Bhajanlal & Ors.: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the principles on which the High Court could intervene in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Cr.PC to interfere with the case of police investigation. The relevant portions are quoted hereunder:

— 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code with we haveextracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficientlychannelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.