Allowed

The Addl. Chief Engineer, (Civil, v. P.Sunder

Telangana HC8 Apr 2011CRLP/5759/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners who were not the contracting officials, holding that allegations did not constitute offences against them as the contract was awarded to other accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 7 of 2000 quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

The Addl. Chief Engineer, (Civil, Vs P.Sunder — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

Crl.P. No. 5759 of 2008

¶3

DATED: 08.04.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. The Additional Chief Engineer (Civil)

¶6

2. The Divisional Engineer (Civil)

¶7

3. The Executive Engineer (Civil)

¶8

4. Supervisor (Civil), C.R.P. Camp, Ramavaram 5. Supervisor (Civil), Punjabgadda Area, Ramavaram .. Petitioners/

A3 to A7

And

1. P. Surender

2. State of A.P. .. Respondents

¶13

O R D E R:-

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - A3 to A7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in

¶15

C.C. No.7 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶16

Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:

¶17

The complainant i.e. the 2^nd respondent herein is a civil contractor, who was awarded work of construction of WC Rooms at CRP Camp, Punjabagadda and Nagaiahgadda areas of Ramavaram, Kothagudem Mandal by the petitioners, vide letter dated 03.02.1996 on certain terms and conditions. In spite of completion of 50% of work at CRP Camp and 20% of work at Nagaiahgadda, necessary payment was not made to the complainant, though it was stipulated that payment should be made by the concerned officials within 15 days from the date of check measurement of the work. Even thereafter, he was not paid for the works done by him. Further, certain check measurements were tampered behind his back to cause loss to him. Hence, the complaint was lodged against the petitioners.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners - A3 to A7 has contended that earlier, some of the accused in the case filed a petition in Crl.P.No.1618 of 2000 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 7 of 2000, and this Court, by

¶19

order dated 08.02.2006, allowed the petition. It is further contended that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 418 and 506 read with 511 IPC against the petitionersaccused.

¶20

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondentcomplainant has contended that the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which are to be decided based on necessary evidence to be recorded, and there are no grounds to allow the petition.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶22

The allegations made against the petitioners-accused do not constitute any of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418 and 506 read with 511 IPC so far as they are concerned. In spite of the fact that the complainant carried out the contract work and was paid certain amounts, it is pertinent to note that the record clearly discloses that the contract work was given to the complainant by Accused Nos.1 and 2, being officials, and not the petitioners (A3 to A7) herein. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, I feel that there is no basis for the complainant to proceed against A3 to A7, who are the petitioners herein, in respect of the alleged offences. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

¶23

proceedings in

¶24

C.C. No.7 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Khammam District are quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶25

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶26

08.04.2011

¶27

bcj

The Addl. Chief Engineer, (Civil, v. P.Sunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Addl. Chief Engineer, (Civil, v. P.Sunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakkakula Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Lakkakula Joythi Kumari

Gurubani Security Private Limited, (Gurubani Detective Vs State of A.P.

Smt. S.Rama Devi, Vs Sri Vijaya Filling Section

Pasuparthy Dattatreya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Polani Varada Rajeswara rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Sathineedi Thirupaiah Vs Donga Sreeramulu