SAIFUDDIN BHARMAL Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.17 of 2019 registered for the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC, on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that a tender was floated by the second respondent for installation of CCTVs at 40 locations across the entire Chennai City. The petitioner's company M/s. Lookman Electroplast Industries Limited was declared as L1 and by a purchase order dated 12.01.2010, the work was awarded to the petitioner's company and an agreement was entered between them. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the work has to be completed within a period of 12 weeks. It also has various clauses for rectification of defects and payment to various authorities. Thereafter by a communication dated 05.03.2010, the police department requested the petitioner not to proceed with the work and later by communication dated 25.01.2011, directed to execute the work. Further alleged that even after the passage of 9 years, not even a few CCTVs are working. The petitioner obtained 90% of the tender value viz., Rs.2,69,80,740/-. When the Deputy Commissioner asked to commence the work, the petitioner raised various frivolous questions and not proceeded further. Further alleged that the petitioner's company is attributing the floods and cyclone Vardha as the reason for non-execution of the work. In this regard, the third respondent convened a meeting and decided to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. On receipt of show cause notice dated 31.01.2018, the petitioner replied with some frivolous reasons on 09.02.2019. Therefore, the petitioner caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.2,69,80,740/-. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner involved in manufacture, sale and installation of security devices that includes cameras and CCTVs. The petitioner is the pioneer in the field having experience of over 30 years. They have been awarded the work to install CCTVs at 40 locations around Chennai City, as per the agreement dated 29.01.2010. When the petitioner stated the work, the second respondent instructed to stop work, by the communication dated 05.03.2010 and later requested to commence the work by the communication dated 21.01.2011. Once again the second respondent asked the petitioner to stop the work as the project of installation of cameras at 40 locations were to be merged with the Integrated Traffic Management System. As such the work again stopped, since the Integrated Traffic Management System would not come out, again commenced the work by letter dated 04.01.2013. The second respondent also suggested to install CCTVs in three new locations.