Judgment :- (Petitioner under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the FIR registered as Cr.No.RC 8/E/2005/CBI/EOW/CNI, Chennai as the allegations made in FIR are baseless arising from misconceived facts.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by A.4 and A.5 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.RC.8/E/2005/CBI/EOW/CNI of SPE: CBI: EOW Chennai Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first petitioner, who is A.4-M/s. Clough Engineering Limited, was entrusted with a turnkey contract for integrated development of G-1 and GS-15 oil fields project by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) at a cost of 216.86 American million dollars, which is equivalent to Rs.1,280 cores approximately, through an agreement dated 06.01.2005. As per the contract, the first petitioner is supposed to obtain 4 insurance polices and such insurance will be affected with an Insurance Company registered and incorporated in India. For the entire contract, the payment has to be released by ONGC to the first petitioner in the form of milestone payment based on the performance of the work as stipulated in the contract agreement. As per the contract, the first milestone payment is to be released upon submission of policies of insurance specific for this project with the certificate of insurance and proof of 100% premium paid. As per the terms of the contract, the first milestone payment is described for ‘insurance 100% upon submission of police/policies of insurance specific for the project and certificate of insurance for other polices and proof of 100% premium paid and accepted by the company for 32,882,100 Australian Dollars’. After completion of these conditions, the ONGC is supposed to release 38,882,100 Australian Dollors in favour of first petitioner. The first petitioner has failed to obtain the above said insurance policies as stipulated in the contract of agreement, instead they obtained only one insurance policy form National Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai. The first petitioner submitted an involve for the first milestone payment of an amount of Rs.32,882,100 Australian Dollars which is equivalent to Rs.112.19 crores. The first petitioner has failed to obtain the above said insurance policies as stipulated in the contract of agreement, instead they obtained only one insurance policy form National Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai. The first petitioner submitted an involve for the first milestone payment of an amount of Rs.32,882,100 Australian Dollars which is equivalent to Rs.112.19 crores. Along with the preformed invoice, they have submitted a forged insurance policy schedule in which the actual premium amount paid has been dishonestly removed by altering the same. The invoice along with the forged insurance policy schedule has been submitted by A.5, who is the Project Manager of the first milestone completion certificate on behalf of first petitioner-company and the same was signed by A.1 on behalf of ONGC. After obtaining the completion certificate and the invoice along with the forged insurance policy schedule, A.5 has claimed the fist milestone payment on behalf of first petitioner company from ONGC. The other accused, who are ONGC officials deliberately failed of verify the authenticity of the claims made by the first petitioner and falsely certified the bona fides of the expenditure and have recommended for release of the payment. They have also dishonestly accepted the certificate submitted by the first petitioner for workmen compensation policy and insurance for their vessels not specify to this project and which was taken form foreign insurance companies prior to the date of award of this contract by committing the breach of contract conditions to cheat the ONGC. A.1 to A.3 dishonestly and fraudulently abused their official positions to cause paucity advantage to the first petitioner and corresponding wrongful loss of ONGC Limited to a tune of Rs.94 cores. They have also wrongfully accepted the certificate of insurance policy form foreign insurance companies not specific to this project, which were taken prior to the date of award of this contract. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the conditions of the contract, insurance premium has to be paid by the first petitioner-company and accordingly it paid Rs.17, 36,09,161/-. There is no stipulation in the agreement that the premium has to be paid in respect of each type of policy and as it is not required to give the details of the premium paid by the company, they have erased the figures relating to the premium and submitted the same to the ONGC officials for release of the amount. There is no stipulation in the agreement that the premium has to be paid in respect of each type of policy and as it is not required to give the details of the premium paid by the company, they have erased the figures relating to the premium and submitted the same to the ONGC officials for release of the amount. He further submitted that the company is undertaking many works and it operated many machines and there are several policies in which premium was paid by the first petitioner-company. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the premium of all the insurance polices as prescribed under the agreement was not paid is not correct. Therefore, he requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The leaned counsel for the petitioners also citied judgments of the Hon’bel Supreme Court to explain the scope of powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The following are the decisions cited by the learned counsel for petitioners: I) In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rafi Shankar Srivastava and Another ( AIR 2006 SC 2872 ); ii) In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s Nepc India Ltd. and Others ( AIR 2006 SC 2780 ); iii) In Amal Chandnra Lakhar v. Benu Sharma (2000 (III) Current Criminal Resports 504), iv) State of Haryana and others v. Ch Bhajan Lall and others ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), and v) State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others ( AIR 1982 SC 949 ) There is no dispute regarding the positions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. But in the present case, there is a specific allegation that the peititioners in collusion with ONGC officials drew the amount to a tune of Rs. 112.19 cores by making the said claim suppressing the non-payment of premium to four insurance polices and the first petitioner-company paid premium only in respect of one type of insurance to cause wrongful loss to the insurance company and to have wrongful gain to a tune of Rs.94 cores. In the light of prima facie material to attract the ingredients of the penal provisions as mentioned above, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.