Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1 (PAT)

Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2009-01-05

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the F.I.R. of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 319 of 2007 dated 24.8.2007 lodged by one Gajendra Narayan Mishra, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Muzaffarpur. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- The Minor Irrigation Department had invited tender. The partnership firm of the petitioner alongwith others also filed tender. Tender paper of the petitioners firm was rejected as it did not conform to the conditions mentioned in the tender notice. The tender paper of the petitioner was substantially rejected as the firm did not deposit security money. The Department treated the petitioners firm as proprietorship and not partnership firm. The Department assumed that the petitioners firm is a proprietorship as it did not file papers in respect of it being a partnership firm at the time of filing of the tender papers. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his tender paper filed writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 801 of 2007. In the aforesaid writ application the petitioner produced Annexure-2 which is a letter issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Patna, wherein he had allowed the conversion of the concerned proprietorship from one of proprietorship to one of partnership firm. 4. The informant alleges that the aforesaid letter dated 18.10.2006 bearing Memo No. 1950(kh) is a forged and antedated document and as such the instant F.I.R. being Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 319/07 dated 24.8.2007 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C. was instituted. 5. As per petitioner, the F.I.R. is based on surmises that the letter issued by the General Manager, D.I.C., Patna, contained in Annexure-2 is a forged and antedated letter. He submits that the letter (Annexure-2) is genuine and thus the main basis of instituting a case falls. According to him the instant case has been lodged with bias in order to wreak vengeance as petitioner moved this Court against the rejection of tender by respondents vide C.W.J.C. No. 801/07. 6. As the main issue centres round the point whether General Manager, D.I.C. issued the letter dated 18.10.2006, Annexure-2, or not, this Court directed the petitioner to add the author of the letter as a party respondent. 6. As the main issue centres round the point whether General Manager, D.I.C. issued the letter dated 18.10.2006, Annexure-2, or not, this Court directed the petitioner to add the author of the letter as a party respondent. Subsequently an affidavit was filed on behalf of the General Manager, D.I.C, stating that Annexure-2 dated 18.10.2006 is genuine document issued by him. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the investigation in this case is going on. 8. This Court finds that the genuineness of the letter dated 18.10.2006 bearing Memo No. 1950(kh) contained in Annexure-2 stands admitted by its author. As the investigation has progressed substantially, this Court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R. and investigation. However, the investigating agency would also take into consideration the aforesaid aspect before submitting final report that the author of the letter, namely, General Manager, D.I.C, Patna has admitted in his affidavit that he has issued the aforesaid letter dated 18.10.2006 recognizing the petitioners concern as partnership firm. 9. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 10. No coercive step would be taken against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from today to enable him to make his representation to the investigating agency. 11. In case the police finds the allegations against the petitioner false it may make recommendations for proceeding against such persons.