AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 234/2014 dt. 22.08.2014 of Police Station, Chhoti Sadari, District Pratapgarh for the offence punishable under Sec. 8B of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1956'') and 283, 336 and 420 IPC. The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 - Project Director, PWD, NH Division, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh while contending that the contract of construction of national highway, details of which are provided in the FIR, has been awarded to the petitioner - Chetak Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the construction company'') and as per the terms and conditions of the contract during the construction of highway, the construction company is required to maintain traffic worthiness and safety thereof. In the impugned FIR certain discrepancies are detailed out to demonstrate that the construction company has failed to take all safety measures which it required to maintain during the construction of the national highway and due to that there exists danger to the public safety at large and the people passing on that national highway are facing great difficulty. It is alleged that the representatives of construction company are guilty of commission of offence punishable under Sec. 8B of the Act of 1956 and Sections 283, 336 and 420 IPC.
While challenging the impugned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare reading of contents of the impugned FIR no offence as alleged in the impugned FIR is made out against the construction company. It is contended that even if it is assumed that the construction company has failed to take certain safety measures as per the conditions of contract then also it is only a case of noncompliance of the terms and condition of contract and in no manner it can be said that the construction company is guilty of commission of any offence.
It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that essential ingredients to constitute offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC are absolutely missing in the complaint and, therefore, the police has also erred in registering the impugned FIR against the construction company for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC. In support of above argument, reliance is placed on a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Thermax Ltd. and Others Vs. K.M. Johny and Others, (2012) CriLJ 438 : (2011) 4 Crimes 179 : (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 409 : (2011) 13 SCC 412 : (2011) 11 SCC 412 : (2011) 11 SCC 128 : (2011) 6 UJ 3695 .
It is also contended that the National Highways Authority of India never issued any notice or warning to the construction company regarding the discrepancies in maintaining safety measures and, therefore, the action of filing impugned FIR by the official of National Highways Authority of India is illegal. On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned FIR.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned FIR.
Section 8A and 8B of the Act of 1956 reads as under:--
"8A. Power of Central Government to enter into agreements for development and maintenance of national highways.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development and maintenance of the whole or any part of a national highway.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the person referred to in Sub-section (1) is entitled to collect and retain fees at such rate, for services or benefits rendered by him as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify having regard to the expenditure involved in building, maintenance, management and operation of the whole or part of such national highway, interest on the capital invested, reasonable return, the volume of traffic and the period of such agreement.
(3) A person referred to in Sub-section (1) shall have powers to regulate and control the traffic in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) on the national highway forming subject-matter of such agreement, for proper management thereof.
8B. Punishment for mischief by injury to national highway.-Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any national highway referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 8A impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both."
As per Section 8A of the Act of 1956 the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development and maintenance of the whole or any part of a national highway. Pursuant to the Section 8A of the Act of 1956 the National Highways Authority of India being an organisation of Central Government has entered into a contract with the petitioner construction company in relation to the development and maintenance of the national highway mentioned in the impugned FIR.
As per Section 8B of the Act of 1956, whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any national highway referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 8A impossible or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both.
In the impugned FIR, the complainant has detailed out certain discrepancies which were noted during the course of inspection by the Safety Engineer. It is alleged that the representatives of the construction company is required to maintain certain safety measures as per the terms and conditions of contract but those safety measures have not been adopted by them, therefore, they are guilty of commission of crimes as mentioned in the complaint.
It is not in dispute that as per the conditions of the contract the petitioner construction company is required to maintain all safety measures so that the public safety may not come in danger.
From the bare reading of contents of the impugned FIR, it is clear that the complainant has levelled allegations against the construction company to the effect that it has failed to make necessary safety measures which made the national highway in question less safe for travelling of the public at large.
So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC are not made out is concerned, this Court, after perusing the contents of the impugned FIR, is of the opinion that there are several Sections mentioned in the impugned FIR, and if a case of cognizable offence relating to one Section is made out and no case in respect of other Sections is made out, then also the whole FIR cannot be quashed.
It is noticed that in the impugned FIR, it is clearly mentioned that despite giving several warning to the construction company, the construction company has failed to maintain safety measures as per the condition of the contract, therefore, the other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was given to the construction company before filing the impugned FIR is also not tenable.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has laid down the principle that an FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court while exercising power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. if from bare reading of the FIR, no case is made out. To mention a few- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, AIR 1988 SC 709 : (1988) CriLJ 853 : (1988) 1 Crimes 780 : (1988) 1 JT 279 : (1988) 1 SCALE 261 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 : (1988) 2 SCR 930 ; State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp ; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, AIR 1996 SC 309 : (1996) CriLJ 381 : (1995) 4 Crimes 171 : (1995) 7 JT 299 : (1995) 5 SCALE 670 : (1995) 6 SCC 194 : (1995) 4 SCR 237 Supp ; Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, (1996) 5 AD 341 : AIR 1996 SC 2452 : (1996) 87 CompCas 849 : (1996) CriLJ 3501 : (1996) 3 Crimes 60 : (1996) 6 JT 227 : (1996) 5 SCALE 99 : (1996) 5 SCC 591 : (1996) 3 SCR 360 Supp : State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) CriLJ 1372 : (1996) 1 Crimes 21 : (1996) 1 JT 601 : (1996) 1 SCALE 394 : (1996) 8 SCC 164 : (1996) 1 SCR 744 Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 : (1999) CriLJ 1833 : (1999) 1 Crimes 136 : (1999) 2 CTC 243 : (1999) 2 JT 112 : (1999) 1 SCALE 697 : (1999) 3 SCC 259 : (1999) 1 SCR 1012 : (1999) 1 UJ 685 : (1999) AIRSCW 881 : (1999) 2 Supreme 442 ; M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. and Others, (2000) CriLJ 1487 : (2000) 2 JT 426 : (2000) 2 SCALE 88 : (2000) 3 SCC 269 : (2000) 1 SCR 1169 : (2000) AIRSCW 682 : (2000) 2 Supreme 261 Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 2000 SC 2341 : (2000) CriLJ 2983 : (2000) 3 JT 604 : (2000) 2 SCALE 694 : (2000) 4 SCC 168 : (2000) 2 SCR 859 : (2000) AIRSCW 2077 : (2000) 3 Supreme 13 , M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Another, (2001) 8 AD 494 : AIR 2001 SC 3014 : (2001) CriLJ 4705 : (2001) 8 JT 540 : (2001) 7 SCALE 126 : (2001) 8 SCC 645 : (2001) AIRSCW 4142 : (2001) 7 Supreme 397 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, AIR 2005 SC 9 : (2005) CriLJ 92 : (2004) 9 SCALE 177 : (2005) 1 SCC 122 .
However, this Court is convinced that from bare reading of the impugned FIR, prima facie case against the petitioner-construction company is made out for not maintaining proper safety measures which may likely to render the national highway impossible or less safe for travelling or conveying property. Hence, no case for interference in this criminal misc. petition is made out. The same is hereby dismissed.