1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.827 of 2010 M/S ADEM MEDIA & RECREATION PVT.LTD. THRU.SANJEEV KUMAR &ORS Versus THE D.G.,VIGILANCE & ORS ----------- 4 7.10.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance. The petitioners pray for quashing of the F.I.R. being Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2010, Special Case No.36 of 2010, instituted by the respondent Vigilance against the petitioner Company and others under sections 467, 468, 420, 406, 409, 472, 120(B), 201 of the Penal Code and under sections 7,8,13(2) read with section 13(2)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is a Company and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are its Directors. The dispute is of civil nature and in view of the nature of allegation leveled in the F.I.R., no criminal prosecution is made out against the petitioners. He submits that some of the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. are not based on correct facts. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that no entry fee is required to be charged from the visitors. However, as per the agreement and pursuant to the order passed in C.W.J.C.No.11115 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation vide its letter no.644 dated 13.7.2010, as contained in Annexure-3, authorized the petitioner to charge entry fee of Rs.2/- per person. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance submits that in course of preliminary enquiry it transpired that 2 fixation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. for the advertisement on bus passengers shelter was made with the collusion of the advertising agencies as against the rate of Rs.80/- and 70/- per sq.ft. fixed by the Government. He submits that asking for royalty of only Rs.3,63,000/- in place of Rs.13,76,000/- for the financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 has caused wrongful loss to the State exchequer and wrongful gain to the accused. He further submits that the rates were deliberately kept low by the officials of the Corporation in collusion with the petitioners to benefit each other. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners made payment of royalty as per the rate fixed and the demand made by the Corporation and as such the petitioners cannot be held responsible for fixation of rates by the Corporation. The petitioner company was given a contract for beautification and up keep of the park for which no financial support was given by the Government. The royalty was charged by the Corporation for using of hoardings for the purposes of advertisement. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court observes that it would be open for the petitioners to make a detail representation either before the Investigating officer or the Superintendent of Police, Patna raising their grievances. In order to enable them to make a representation, no coercive steps would be taken against them for a period of five weeks from today. Regarding being had to the fact that petitioner no.3 is 3 KHAN a lady and wife of petitioner no.2, no coercive steps would be taken against her till filing of the final report. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)