JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 234/2014 dated 22.8.2014 of Police Station, Chhoti Sadari, District-Pratapgarh for the offence punishable under Section 8B of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') and Sections 283, 336 and 420 I.P.C. 2. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2-Project Director, PWD, NH Division, Nimbahera, District-Chittorgarh while contending that the contract of construction of national highway, details of which are provided in the F.I.R., has been awarded to the petitioner-Chetak Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the construction company') and as per the terms and conditions of the contract during the construction of highway, the construction company is required to maintain traffic worthiness and safety thereof. In the impugned F.I.R. certain discrepancies are detailed out to demonstrate that the Construction Company has failed to take all safety measures which it required to maintain during the construction of the National Highway and due to that there exists danger to the public safety at large and the people passing on that national highway are facing great difficulty. It is alleged that the representatives of Construction Company are guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 8B of the Act of 1956 and Sections 283, 336 and 420 I.P.C. 3. While challenging the impugned F.I.R., learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare reading of contents of the impugned F.I.R. no offence as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. is made out against the Construction Company. It is contended that even if it is assumed that the Construction Company has failed to take certain safety measures as per the conditions of contract then also it is only a case of non-compliance of the terms and condition of contract and in no manner it can be said that the Construction Company is guilty of commission of any offence. 4. 4. It is also argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that essential ingredients to constitute offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. are absolutely missing in the complaint and, therefore, the police has also erred in registering the impugned F.I.R. against the Construction Company for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. In support of above argument, reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Thermax Ltd. (M/s.) & Ors. v. K.M. Johny & Ors., reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 869. 5. It is also contended that the National Highways Authority of India never issued any notice or warning to the Construction Company regarding the discrepancies in maintaining safety measures and, therefore, the action of filing impugned F.I.R. by the official of National Highways Authority of India is illegal. in the strength of above arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned F.I.R. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned F.I.R. 7. Sections 8A and 8B of the Act of 1956 reads as under "8A. Power of Central Government to enter into agreements for development and maintenance of National Highways. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development and maintenance of the whole or any part of a National Highways. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the person referred to in sub-section (1) is entitled to collect and retain fees at such rate, for services or benefits rendered by him as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify having regard to the expenditure involved in building, maintenance, management and operation of the whole or part of such National Highways, interest on the capital invested, reasonable return, the volume of traffic and the period of such agreement. (3) A person referred to in sub-section (1) shall have powers to regulate and central the traffic in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) on the National Highway forming subject-matter of such agreement, for proper management thereof. 8B. (3) A person referred to in sub-section (1) shall have powers to regulate and central the traffic in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) on the National Highway forming subject-matter of such agreement, for proper management thereof. 8B. Punishment for mischief by injury to National Highway.-Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to the likely to render any National Highway referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 8A impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both." 8. As per Section 8A of the Act of 1956 the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development and maintenance of the whole or any part of a National Highway. Pursuant to the Section 8A of the Act of 1956 the National Highways Authority of India being an organisation of Central Government has entered into a contract with the petitioner Construction Company in relation to the development and maintenance of the national highway mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. 9. As per Section 8B of the Act of 1956, whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any National Highway referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 8A impossible or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both. 10. In the impugned F.I.R., the complainant has detailed out certain discrepancies which were noted during the course of inspection by the Safety Engineer. It is alleged that the representatives of the Construction Company is required to maintain certain safety measures as per the terms and conditions of contract but those safety measures have not been adopted by them, therefore, they are guilty of commission of crimes as mentioned in the complaint. 11. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions of the contract the petitioner Construction Company is required to maintain all safety measures so that the public safety may not come in danger. 12. 11. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions of the contract the petitioner Construction Company is required to maintain all safety measures so that the public safety may not come in danger. 12. From the bare reading of contents of the impugned F.I.R., it is clear that the complainant has levelled allegations against the Construction Company to the effect that it has failed to make necessary safety measures which made the National Highway in question less safe for travelling of the public at large. 13. So far as argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. are not made out is concerned, this Court, after perusing the contents of the impugned F.I.R., is of the opinion that there are several sections mentioned in the impugned F.I.R., and if a case of cognizable offence relating to one section is made out and no case in respect of other sections is made out, then also the whole F.I.R. cannot be quashed. 14. It is noticed that in the impugned F.I.R., it is clearly mentioned that despite giving several warning to the Construction Company, the Construction Company has failed to maintain safety measures as per the condition of the contract, therefore, the other contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that no notice was given to the Construction Company before filing the impugned F.I.R. is also not tenable. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has laid down the principle that an F.I.R. or criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if from bare reading of the F.I.R., no case is made out. To mention a few- Mahdavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. To mention a few- Mahdavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 ; Rupan Deo Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591 ; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164 ; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 ; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 ; Haridaya Rajan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 ; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 ; and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 . However, this Court is convinced that from bare reading of the impugned F.I.R., prima facie case against the petitioner-Construction Company is made out for the maintaining proper safety measures which may likely to render the National Highway impossible or less safe for travelling or conveying property. 16. Hence, no case for interference in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is made out. The same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******