ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. M/S. GPS BUILDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being C.N 1169 of 2021 dtd. 27/12/2021 under Sec. 406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), presently pending before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 18th court Calcutta. Petitioners contended that they succeeded in a tender process for installing lift as floated by BHEL. Accordingly a demand of quotation for scaffolding work was made by the petitioner no.2 being Regional Manager of petitioner no.1 from the opposite party no. 1 through an email dtd. 18/1/2019. After considering the quotation the petitioners issued work order for a period of three months. Accordingly an invoice was issued by the opposite party no.1 for Rs.1,14,224.00 and after deduction, Rs.1,13,256.00 was paid to the opposite party no.1 by the petitioners. Thereafter the work order was extended from time to time and the invoices raised by the opposite party no. 1was cleared by the petitioners. An email was conveyed to the petitioners by the opposite party no.1dated 7/12/2019 for further extension of time period, but the same was not done. Thereafter the petitioner no.2 by an email dtd. 21/12/2019 asked the opposite party no.1 to remove all the scaffolding materials as no further extension of work order would be issued. However the same was not complied by the opposite party no.1 and on the contrary the opposite party no.1 kept on raising invoices as rent for the scaffolding items that are lying on the site. Subsequently a dispute arose between opposite party no. 1 and the petitioners with regard to the quantum of the rent which according to opposite party no.1 had summed up to the tune of Rs.3,19,529.00. It is further alleged that the opposite party no. 1 sent two of their representatives at the site for collecting the items, lying there on 28/10/2021, without informing the petitioners during the Covid Pandemic situation and as such the security guard did not allow the representatives of opposite party no.1to enter the site in the absence of representative of the petitioners Accordingly the instant criminal proceeding has been initiated, against the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Dey learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitions submit that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature where the actual arrear amount of rent has to be decided, which can only be determined by a Civil Court. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR, even if taken to be true does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. He further submits that the security staff had sufficient reason for not allowing the representative of the opposite party to enter into the site as the representative of the OP No. 1 has gone to the site without informing the petitioners that too in a pandemic Situation and as such may be, the representative of the opposite party no. 1 was not allowed to enter in the site by the security.

(3.) He further submits in spite of that the petitioners had time and again asked the opposite party no.1 in getting their materials lifted by obtaining requisites permissions from NTPC and the petitioners are till date willing to co-operate with the opposite party no.1with regard to the collection of scaffolding items from the site by obtaining requisites permission. He also submits in this context that all the letters addressed to the petitioners by the opposite party no.1 with regard to the dispute had been duly replied and solution to the effect had been suggested for redressal of the issue but the opposite party no.1 with a malafide intention and in order to malign the reputation of the petitioners, have initiated the present proceeding.