P RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is described as sole proprietor of Mednob Healthcare, a proprietory concern located in Madurai (Tamil Nadu), the second petitioner statedly being his Manager. The said entity had entered into a contract described as Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12.12.2014 with Primus Super Speciality Hospital (the complainant) regarding supply of five diagnostic equipments. It appears from the documents and it is not disputed that the petitioners received from the opposite party, an amount of Rs. 1.48 crore out of the total consideration of Rs. 1.97 crore. Two out of the five machines were supplied, there also being a controversy raised about the supplied machines being faulty. It appears, after prolonged correspondence between the parties, the petitioners not coming forth with any corrective steps or for supply of the remainder, a complaint was lodged which led to the registration of first information report (FIR) no. 003/2018 with police station Chankyapuri in which allegations of involvement of the petitioners in acts of commission and omission constituting offences under Section 406/420/34 IPC have been levelled.

(2.) The case has been under investigation, not much progress having been made therein, as the later events would show also because the petitioners engaged the opposite party in some parleys for amicable resolution. It may be added here itself that at the instance of the first petitioner arbitral proceedings are also stated to have taken place at Madurai (Tamil Nadu), it leading to an arbitral award dated 16.05.20018 in terms of which the complainant side would owe an amount of Rs. 32,43,309/- to him under the same contract. The complainant, however, pointed out at the hearing and the counsel for the petitioners conceded to this position, that a challenge has been brought to the arbitral award, inter alia, on the ground that the sole arbitrator had misconducted himself by taking up such assignment against the backdrop showing he having been earlier associated as counsel for the petitioners. Objection to this effect had been taken at the outset by the opposite party and challenge on this ground is pending in Court. The arbitral award has, thus, yet to attain finality.

(3.) The petitioners had earlier approached the court of Sessions for anticipatory bail by moving an application which appears to have come up for consideration for the first time on or about 17.05.2018. Interim protection was granted by the initial order against coercive steps to be taken with directions to the petitioner to join investigation and cooperate, this against the backdrop of the report of the investigating officer that they had failed to do so earlier.