MADHWENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which he has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Economic Offence P.S.Case No.24 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.10.2012 the Assistant Director, Tourism Directorate, Patna lodged a written report with Economic Offence Unit Police Station alleging, inter alia, therein that the State of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms by its Notification dated 14.9.2012 informed that the State decided to transfer the management of Sonepur Mela to the Tourism Department for a period of five years and for that the Tourism Department decided to appoint Event Management Agency for its empanelment and thereafter five Firms showed their interest and out of which three firms, namely, Madho Singh and Sons, Sonepur, Adland Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and Impact Communications, New Delhi filed their tenders and each of the Firms deposited Rs. 5 lacs by way of Demand Draft as per terms of R.E.P. and as per Clause 14(b) of the R.F.P. for evaluation of presentation a 6 Member High Level Committee was constituted and it was decided that who have obtained 60 marks their financial bid will be opened and thereafter technical bid was opened on 17.10.2012 with respect to two firms out of three, namely, Madho Singh and Sons, Sonepur and Impact Communications, New Delhi and the Committee recommended the tender in favour of Impact Communication, New Delhi as Event Manager for the Sonepur Mela, 2012. The further case is that on 19.10.2012 Madho Singh and Sons had filed a complaint before the Minister against the Director, Tourism alleging, inter alia, that the tender of the petitioner being highest bidder was ignored and favour another bidder as he failed to take note of 2 points in financial bid; firstly 2% extra on quoted price and secondly in addition all taxes would be paid by the Firm and after examination of the complaint of the petitioner by 5-Member Departmental Committee came to a conclusion that after opening of Financial Bid the two quotations were interpolated by the petitioner-Firm in connivance with the employees of the office after the recommendation of the 6-Member Committee.

(3.) Thereafter the Economic Offence Unit after investigation submitted charge-sheet has been submitted and after submission of charge-sheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.