MONISHANKAR HAZRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the two petitions filed under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to set aside/quash the order dtd. 15/12/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, in case bearing no. COMI/63/2021 titled as "Sharad Kothari vs. United Health Group Information Services and Ors.", registered on 31/8/2021 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including FIR bearing no.508 dtd. 23/12/2021 registered under Ss. 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula.

(2.) Respondent no.2 had filed a complaint dtd. 27/8/2021 under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-28 page 539) against ten accused persons, including 9 petitioners in both the petitions, collectively. A prayer was made in the said complaint for issuance of directions as envisaged under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station for registration of an FIR under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, on the allegations that the accused persons committed illegalities in order to procure a tender, floated by Haryana State Health Resource Centre (hereinafter referred to as "HSHRC") for implementation of Hospital Information System (HIS) in favour of M/s United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "UHGIS"). It had been alleged in the complaint that the complainant / respondent no.2 was an ex-employee of accused no. 1-company and was appointed as Director Business Development vide appointment letter dtd. 9/12/2013 in accused no.1-company, which came to be known as M/s Optum Global Solutions India Limited after passing of the amalgamation order by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad on 20/3/2017. It has further been alleged that in the month of December, 2013, the Government of Haryana through HSHRC floated a tender/Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as ("RFP") for implementation of HIS. As per the said tender, the bidders were required to be highly specialized in the field of 'System Integration' with minimum qualifications / requirements as prescribed under para 4.3 of Volume II of tender /RFP. Specific reference had been made to serial nos. 7 and 8 of said para 4.3. It has also been alleged that the award of contract was dependent upon the fulfillment of the qualifications as prescribed and in pursuance of the said tender, five companies submitted their cost bids to the HSHRC. The companies who had given their bid are as follows:-

(3.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, vide impugned order dtd. 15/12/2021 allowed the said application and directed the SHO, Sector 5 Panchkula to lodge the FIR. In the said order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, had considered the interim report dtd. 22/7/2020 which was submitted by the Director General Health Services Haryana, Panchkula in which Sanjay Sethi, Assistant General Manager, HARTRON and Puneet Brar, Senior Consultant, HARTRON had made observations against the accused persons. Reliance was also placed upon the interim report of the Investigating Officer dtd. 1/9/2020. It was further observed that since respondent no.2 was also involved in bidding process on behalf of accused no.1 company, the Court was taking cognizance on the report filed by above said Sanjay Sethi and Puneet Brar. In pursuance of the same, above said FIR no.508 dtd. 23/12/2021 was registered and above said Sanjay Sethi and Puneet Brar were made as complainant. It is the above said order dtd. 15/12/2021, FIR dtd. 23/12/2021 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom which have been challenged by 9 accused persons by filing two separate petitions.