Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 419 (JHR)

Badal Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand

2022-04-07

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 169/2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 901/2010 including order dated 15.02.2016 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 409, 419, 420 I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chatra. 3. F.I.R. has been registered by the informant alleging therein that construction work of the Road from Kolkole Khurd to Banwa area about 10 k.m. was allotted to the proprietor of Badal Kumar Das M/s Lovely Transport Company, Ratu Road for which an agreement was entered into on 28.05.2008. It is further alleged that the time granted for completion of the work by the department was 27.05.2009 and at the time agreement, Bank Guarantee was furnished amounting to Rs. 17,41,000/- but the said Bank Gurantee on verification was found forged. 4. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that pursuant to agreement, petitioner has started construction work but during course of construction work it was alleged that the bank guarantee produced by the petitioner was found forged. He further submits that the case is arises out of contract which is civil in nature but F.I.R. has been lodged. On these grounds, this petition is fit to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State submits that work in question has not been completed and bank guarantee produced by the petitioner has been found to be forged and the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has already been rejected, thereafter this quashing petition has been filed before this Court. 6. On perusal of F.I.R., it transpires that petitioner has produced bank guarantee of a sum of Rs. 17,41,000/-. Time was extended for the bank guarantee till 27.05.2009 and after lapse of time on 23.02.2010, the bank guarantee was extended amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/-. By letter dated 24.05.2010 the said bank guarantee was sent to the Bank of India for verification, thereafter Bank of India informed that no such bank guarantee was issued by the Branch. 7. Thus, a case is made out against the petitioner. 8. 17,50,000/-. By letter dated 24.05.2010 the said bank guarantee was sent to the Bank of India for verification, thereafter Bank of India informed that no such bank guarantee was issued by the Branch. 7. Thus, a case is made out against the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is not a fit case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Pending, I.A, if any stands dismissed. Interim order dated 17.12.2021 is vacated.