M. THIPPESHA AND ORS. Vs. S. PUSHPALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under S. 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against an order dated 30.03.2011, passed in C.C. No. 413/2011 by the JMFC, Sira and also to quash the proceedings of the said case (PCR No. 43/2010).

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 worked as Commissioner in City Municipal Council, Sira from 16.03.2009 to 15.06.2010. 2nd petitioner worked as Junior Engineer therein from March 2007, up to 26.06.2010. City Municipal Council, Sira had invited tenders on 30.06.2009, with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, for construction of six Welcome Arches, at Sira City entrances. Out of the three bidders, M/s. Bhumi Engineers, Bengaluru became the successful bidder and was allotted with the tendered work, as approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur. Work Order was issued on 09.09.2009. Sri Madhu, an unsuccessful bidder, preferred an appeal and challenged the Work Order issued to M/s. Bhumi Engineers. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration - Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal and set aside orders dated 05.09.2009 and 09.09.2009, in respect of the tender for package -1 i.e., erection of Welcome Arches.

(3.) SRI Subramanya Bhat, learned advocate, firstly contended that the complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious, is nothing but abuse of process of law. Secondly, sanction of the Government, as required under S. 197 of Cr.P.C., which is a condition precedent to file a private complaint, having not been taken and cognizance taken against the petitioners, public servants, is illegal. Thirdly, there being mechanical act on the part of the learned Magistrate, interference is called for. He submitted that, a reading of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence in as much as the petitioners had no role in the matter of awarding of the contract. He submitted that, after the appeal filed by Sri B.R. Madhu was allowed, a second tender Notification was issued and contract having been awarded to Sri Kiran on 05.11.2011, there cannot be any prosecution of these petitioners. He submitted that there being abuse of process by the respondent, the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought in this petition.