9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruction Project Ltd. against an order dated 3rd May, 2002 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Crl.M.P. No. 4780/2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for quashing an order dated 19th June, 2001 whereby cognizance was taken of offence against the appellants under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. Briefly, the facts are that Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (for short, SAIL) awarded a contract to M/s. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (for short, TISCO), Growth Shop for certain works. TISCO growth shop completed supply part of the work and erection part of the work was entrusted by it to M/s. Tata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money and no case for criminal complaint for the alleged offences is made out. We have been taken through the complaint as well as out attention has been drawn to the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the conforming order of the High Court. After careful consideration of the facts placed on records, it appears to us that the dispute between the parties is of a purely civil nature. The grievance of the complainant is about the failure of TCPL to pay the balance amount under the contract even though according to if the work stands completed. The appellants have disputed this. 5. In our view, what is relevant is that the contract between TCPL and the complainant is an independent contract regarding execution of cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint, the complainant has stated as under: ...Release of payments to complainant was never depended on the payment released by Bokaro Steel Plant a Unit of SAIL to TISCO growth shop and TCPL. 8. Thus admittedly, the two contracts are independent of each other and payment under one has no relevance qua the other. It cannot be said that there is any dishonest intention on the part of appellants nor it can be said that TCPL or the appellants have misappropriated or converted the movable property of the complainant to their own use. Since the basic ingredients of the relevant Section in the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied, the order taking cognizance of the offence as well as the issue of summons to the appellants is wholly un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
