Jharkhand High Court
M/S Harsh Engineering Works vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 24 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2569 of 2017
----
M/s Harsh Engineering Works .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
----
5/24.11.2023 Notices were issued upon O.P.No.2.
2. The office note suggest that notice has been received by
O.P.No.2 personally on 05.01.2023 itself and till date nobody has
appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2. In view of that, this petition is being
heard in absence of the O.P.No.2.
3. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of C/1-99/15 including the order taking cognizance
dated 19.08.2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
5. The complaint case has been filed by Opposite Party No.2
(Complainant) and the Complaint case, in brief interalia, are as under;
(a) Complainant has a business of transporting and handling jobs.
(b) Accused No. 1 and 2, who has been engaged as sub-
contractor by Accused No. 3 being the Principal Contractor, has
approached and requested the complainant for supply of
machineries for cutting of over burden at Kalyani Project, Dhori
Area and accordingly issued work order dated 17.12.2013.
(c) After mutual discussion and negotiation with complainant, the
Accused no. 2 issued a letter dated 17.12.2013 to the Complainant
assigning terms and conditions for hiring of drill machine and
compressor, which was accepted by the Complainant and
accordingly as per assurance and promise of timely payment of
bills, the Complainant has supplied the instruments at the work
place.
(d) After completion of work of one month, the complainant
submitted his bill to the Accused No. 1 for its payment, but was
assured by Accused No. 2 for payment within a very short period
and after completion of drilling work of three months, the
Complainant submitted bill from 21st December, 2015 to 20th
March, 2014 amounting to Rs. 6,51,220/- but has been paid only
Rs. 1,50,000/-, with an assurance to pay the due amount within a
short period.
(e) Later on, on 05.04.2014, it has come to the notice of the
Complainant that the accused No. 1 has left the aforesaid Dhori
Kalyani Project without any intimation and payment of the above
due amount to the complainant dishonestly put the complainant in
wrongful loss and hence the Complainant decided to stop the
drilling work at the said Project.
(f) In the meantime, the Complainant has been served with a
letter dated 12.04.2014 from the Accused No. 3 with request to
maintain the continuity of the work without any time lapse and
without any apprehension of not getting the payment of the work
done by the complainant.
(g) On the assurance of Accused No. 3, the Complainant continued
the work for further two months since 21.03.2014 to 20.05.2014
for which bill of Rs. 1,60,000/- per month comes to Rs. 3,20,000/-
but paid only Rs. 1,00,000/- from Accused No. 3 on 15.04.2014,
but as a matter of fact, the Complainant is entitled for a total dues
of Rs.7,21,220/- only including the dues of Rs.5,01,220/- only.
(h) Complainant has made request to the Accused no. 1 and 3
severally, but no payment made till date.
6. Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that so far as the accused no.1 and 2 are
concerned, they have approached this Court by way of filing Cr.M.P.
No.146 of 2017 and the said matter was allowed by order dated
27.02.2017 whereby the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 19.08.2015 in connection with C/1-99/15 was
quashed and set aside. He submits that although this order is not specific
on quashing the order so far as those petitioners are concerned and in
spite of that the learned court is proceeding against this petitioner. He
submits that on settlement between the accused nos. 1 and 2, and the
complainant, the complainant has received the entire amount. He further
submits that the accused nos.1 and 2 are main accused against them the
proceeding is quashed as this petitioner has got the work order from M/s
H.S.C.L., Bokaro and this petitioner has appointed the accused nos.1 and
2 as sub-contractor and the accused nos.1 and 2 have appointed the
complainant and there is settlement between the parties and the entire
criminal proceeding has already been quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P.
No.146 of 2017.
7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent
State accepts this position so far as the two accused are concerned. The
case has already been quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.146 of 2017.
8. In view of the above, it appears that the case of the
petitioner is on better footing than that of the accused no.1 and 2 and
officer of the company is the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.146 of 2017, and, in
view of that, the case of the petitioner will govern by the judgment dated
27.02.2017 passed in Cr.M.P. No.146 of 2017, whereby the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance has already been
quashed.
9. This petition is disposed of, accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
