PRADEEP NARAYAN SINGH Vs. SANCHANA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 528 read with Sec. 442 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding in C.R Case No. 10/2024 under Sec. 120B, 403,406,409,418 and 420 of the IPC, which is presently pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dtd. 21/6/2024 by which cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the said complaint case. The complaint in brief is as follows.

(2.) The present lis is in connection with a contract agreement entered between the petitioners and the Airport Authority of India (herein after referred to as AAI). Complainant No. 1 is a partner in a partnership firm namely, M/s CSA Sanna Vibhav Hospitality LLP (herein after referred to as the LLP) having its registered office at Dimapur, Nagaland. The complainant stated that in the year 2017, a request for proposal was floated by the AAI, by which tenders were invited for the concession to setup a market and beverage outlets at the Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati for a period of 7 years. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 through petitioner No. 4 i.e., the M/s Hotel Pradeep submitted the bid and were allotted the contract by the airport authority by Letter of Intent to Award dtd. 23/12/2017. A contract i.e., Master Concession Contract was executed between the AAI and the petitioners and in the said contract the AAI allowed the petitioners to give sub-contract or sub-concession or assign any of its duties in part. It was provided in the contract that a total area of 617 Sq.m outside the airport was to be provided by the AAI for the said contract. In view of the power granted to the petitioners to give sub-contract, the petitioner gave the sub-contract to respondent No. 1 who had executed LLP with petitioner No. 3 in the State of Nagaland. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner finding that the contract was huge and were unattainable, searched for partners to sub-let the same and in the process of searching such partners met the father of the respondent No. 1 who agreed to act as sub-contractor. The complainant also stated that the petitioners told them that the business was ready to be operated with a complete setup and that the infrastructures were also available. It was stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 reported that the petitioner No. 3 has enough experience in the said field and that he would work with the complainant No. 1 and as such, the complainant No. 1 became a partner with petitioner No. 3 and registered the LLP as stated above.

(3.) It was further stated that while doing the business, the complainant No. 1 would take 51% of the share and the petitioner No. 3 would take 49% share in the LLP. In view of the said LLP, the Sub-Concession Agreement dtd. 13/12/2018 was executed between the complainant No. 1 and the petitioner. In the Sub-Contract Agreement, it was agreed that out of 618 Sq.m, 544 Sq.m was assigned for the job. It was agreed that the petitioner No. 4 would contract/develop the food and beverage outlet in the Sub Contract area and that the petitioners would hire personnels, setup menus and also would repair anything that is required. Further, the considerations for the Sub-Concession Agreement were fixed and in view of the said Sub Concession Agreement, complainant No. 2 i.e., the partnership firm made payments to the petitioners such as security deposit of 5 crore 30 lakhs, investment of Rs.5.00 crore towards developments of the outlets and then additional investment of 16,36,855 for rectifying deficiency in the Sub Contract area. The complainant stated that the contract began in December, 2018 and that the petitioners did not fulfill their obligations and that they had not invested money in making the area operational. It was also stated that the complainant was made to believe that after paying the aforesaid amount, the petitioners would provide them absolute rights over the area of 545 Sq.m but after receiving the payments, the petitioners defaulted with various clauses of the Sub-Concession Agreement. Further, that although an area of 545 Sq.m were to be given, however only 377 Sq.m were allotted to them that too without being fully developed. The complainant stated that from the first month of the business, she suffered loss and that the petitioner No. 3 who was supposed to help her, being her partner did not do anything and that she was left by her own to manage the same. It was also stated that the petitioner No. 3 had always helped the petitioners in running their own business instead of helping the complainant and that only shares of the LLP were to be apportioned in the ratio of 49:51, however, fixed monthly sub-concession fee was divided between them in the said ratio. It was thereafter stated that in view of the immense loss incurred, the complainant decided to terminate the Sub-Concession Agreement in August, 2019 and at that juncture, the petitioner No. 3 persuaded the complainant to let his father i.e., the petitioner No. 1 to run the business with a further promise to return Rs.5.00 crores spent by the complainant which according to the complainant was an attempt to dishonestly take over the sub-concession area.