(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 561-A Cr.P.C (now 482 Cr. P.C.) for quashing of the charge sheet bearing No. RC0042011A0005 for commission of offence under Section 420-A RPC pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu (hereinafter referred to be as the trial court), on the following grounds:-
(2.) The respondents have filed the response, in which it is stated that the petitioners have a remedy of approaching the Magistrate concerned for discharge and further that the petitioners deliberately supplied the substandard material thereby causing loss to the NHPC and the Managing Director of the petitioner-company has admitted that all the decisions of the petitioner-company are taken with the prior approval of the Chairman. Besides, the factual aspects of the matter have been narrated in detail in the response filed by respondents. Arguments:
(3.) Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that once Ranjeet Thakur was exonerated by the respondents, in whose presence the material was tested in the factory premises of the petitioners, so the petitioners cannot be held liable particularly when Ranjit Thakur had certified the tensile strength of the weasel conductor as per the specifications required under the contract. He further argued that section 420-A RPC is not applicable in the instant case as there was no privity of contract between the petitioner company and the NHPC, because the product was supplied by the petitioner-company to M/s. L&T Limited, which is not a government company, as such, the charge-sheet is required to be quashed. He further submitted that the petitioner-company cannot be held liable for any defect beyond the warranty period. The petitioners were under obligation to rectify the defect during that period only. No such defect arose within the warranty period. Dispute, if any, is at the most of civil in nature, so the continuance of impugned charge sheet shall be an abuse of process of law. Mr. Sethi further argued that with the passage of time the quality of the product gets affected and once the warranty period had expired, any test conducted upon the samples of the product supplied by the petitioners was of no relevance. He further submitted that there are no allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, so they cannot be prosecuted. Mr. Sethi placed much reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Sushil Sethi v State of Arunachal Pardesh reported in 2020(3) SCC 240. Though numerous other grounds were also raised in the petition but Mr. Sethi restricted his arguments only on the issues mentioned above.