ATHUL DHALE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.71 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosive Limited (herein after called as 'TEL') is the Tamil Nadu Government undertaking involved in manufacturing of commercial explosive and its accessories. During 2005, the Government of India banded the production as well as the sale of Nitro Glycerin (herein after called as 'NG') products. Thereafter, in order to prevent the deterioration of the equipments, the officials published advertisement inviting tender for utilizing the existing machinery using term-key basis. The petitioner's company M/s.3A Chemie Private Limited(herein after called as 'company') submitted two proposals. On the basis of the proposals, they entered into a Technology Agreement and Confidential and Non Disclosure Agreement. The technology agreement contained the payment recitals and terms of payment.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that on 14.12.2005, technology agreement was entered with the petitioner's company with sale of 2-EHN technology and payments. The total cost of the agreement was Rs.94 lakhs and also to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per metric ton of 2-EHN for the first 8000 MT produced by the TEL after completion of the project as royalty. On 29.12.2005, the purchase order was placed with the petitioner's company containing the material description and specifications. It was agreed upon that the work has to be completed within a period of 20 weeks and if they failed to execute, then the second respondent could cancel the civil works. It was a proposal of enhancement of existing nitration reaction facility from 4000 TPA to 15000 TPA and the same was not permitted by the Board of Directors of TEL and it was not considered. No purchase order was placed with the petitioner's company and no agreement for enhancement was signed by the parties.