Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Khandayinfrstructure Pvt. Ltd vs Ut Of J&K on 31 August, 2021
Sr. No. 126
(Regular Cause list)
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 470/2021
CrlM Nos. 1520/2021 &
1521/2021in
B.A. No. 247/2021
CrlM Nos. 1482/2021 &
1518/2021
KhandayInfrstructure Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
31.08.2021
CRM(M) No. 470/2021
1. Response has not been filed.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the
FIR No. 43/2021 dated 04.07.2021, registered with the Police Station, Chattroo,
Kishtwar for commission of offences under Sections 420, 406, 431 and 336 IPC.
3. From the perusal of the FIR in question, it is evident that the same has
been lodged by Ashok Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar. As such, on
the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, he is arrayed as party
respondent No. 2.
4. Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Dy. AG has caused appearance on
behalf of newly arrayed respondent No. 2 also.
5. Registry is directed to update the index.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner-company has been allotted
restoration and repair work of Batote-Kishtwar Sinthan pass road in the Union
Territory of J&K from 155 to 170 KM and other miscellaneous work and during
the currency of the said allotment, it was found that the bitumen content in the
work executed by the petitioner-company was sub-standard.
7. It is also submitted that the National Highways and Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited (in short "NHIDCL") had also intimated the
petitioner-company to take the corrective steps and the petitioner-company
undertook that the company will dismantle the defective work and will also
reconstruct the same under the supervision of the Engineer, Incharge of the
NHIDCL.
8. It is further submitted that the dispute is primarily a civil in nature,
that has been given a criminal colour by the complainant, just because of the
over enthusiasm of the Deputy Commissioner.
9. Mr. P.N. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled, "Sushil Sethi
and Anr. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors., reported in 2020 (3) SCC
240."
10. Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Dy. AG seeks time to file the detailed
response to the petition for quashing the impugned FIR on or before next date of
hearing.
11. List again on 29.09.2021.
12. Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date
of hearing, it is ordered that the investigation in the impugned FIR shall
continue, however, the challan shall not be presented before the competent court
of law without prior permission of this Court.
B.A. No. 247/2021
1. The petitioners, who happen to be the Director, Managing Director
and CEO respectively of the company-Khanday Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., have
filed the instant application, seeking bail in anticipation of arrest.
2. The perusal of the FIR impugned reveals that the allegations have
been leveled regarding the sub-standard work executed by M/S Khanday
Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. It is not in dispute that Khanday Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. has undertaken to rectify the defects pursuant to the communication
addressed by the NHIDCL. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the defects stand removed as on date.
3. Response stands filed, in which it has been stated that the petitioners
are the influential persons and if they are admitted to bail in anticipation of
arrest, they would attempt to influence the witnesses. It is further submitted that
the petitioners have not joined the investigation and, therefore, they are not
entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains undisputed that the petitioners have
rectified the defective work after NHIDCL intimated the company regarding the
defect. The FIR has been registered for commission of offence under Sections
420, 406, 431 and 336 IPC and there are no specific allegations against the
petitioners.
5. The apprehension expressed by the respondents that the petitioners
may influence the witnesses can be taken care of, by imposing the appropriate
conditions.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed
that in the event of petitioners' arrest in the impugned FIR, they shall be
released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) They shall furnish bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-
each, as also the personal bonds with sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner No. 5, who is the CEO of the company
shall remain present before the Investigating Officer for
three days from 03.09.2021 to 05.09.2021 and rest of the
petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when directed to do so.
(iii) They shall not contact with the prosecution witnesses
either physically or through any other mode.
7. The respondent shall be at liberty to lay a motion for cancellation of
bail, in the event there is violation of any condition imposed by this Court.
8. Bail application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge
Jammu
31.08.2021
Ram Krishan
