Crl. Misc. No. M-31301 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31301 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2011 Anuradha Priyadarshni and another ......................... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing FIR No. 338 dated 18.10.2008 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak (Annexure P/1) on the complaint of Shri S.S.Panwar, Executive Engineer Division No. IV, PWD (B&R), PGIMS Rohtak. M/s Trimurti Construction, Developers & Builders took a contract for the construction of two major development projects, one is construction of OPD Trauma Building, secondly construction of Maternity and Dental Department building PGIMS Rohtak. The Department provided ` 2.90 crores for the purchase of machinery in advance. Department had Crl. Misc. No. M-31301 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] taken Bank guarantees from the company amounting to `84,56,699/- and three bank guarantees worth amounting to `40.00 lacs each issued by Allahabad Bank Branch, Anand Vihar Delhi. At the time of tender, this firm had given bank guarantee of `61.94 lacs to the Department issued by Allahabad Bank Branch. These bank guarantees were verified by the Bank Manager Shri N.K.Tomar to be genuine. When the bank guarantees were sent for encashment, the Department was informed that bank guarantees worth `40.00 lacs were issued by him but the bank guarantees worth `84,56,669/- and `64,56,999/- were not issued by him. In the above background, the FIR was got registered. Challan has been presented in which the complainant gave a statement that all the financial liabilities have been cleared by the firm. During the pendency of this petition, a supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. has been submitted on 16.11.2010 against Anuradha Priyadarshni and Santosh Kumar. Mr. K.K.Goel, counsel for the petitioners, has argued that Anuradha Priyadarshni and Santosh Kumar had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Rajiv Ranjan Kumar for looking after the business of the firm and therefore they were not personally involved in the day-to-day work and the offence under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC is not made out against them. On 1.5.2008 Anuradha Priyadarshni, partner of the firm, had resigned and in view of this she has not been an active partner after her resignation. Before that, the petitioners had given a Power of Attorney to Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, therefore, they were not involved in any business transactions of the firm in relation to giving of bank guarantees to the Department which turned out to be fake. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through Crl. Misc. No. M-31301 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] the challan, this Court is of the view that during investigation it has been proved that the owner of the firm used to transfer their addresses from time to time and at the time of issuance and after issuance the signatures of the partners of the firm i.e. Anuradha Priyadarshni and Santosh Kumar were not found on any document. The anticipatory bail of co-accused Vinay Vishan and Nirdosh Kumar is pending and they will be separately challaned after their arrest. In view of the above facts, this case does not fall into the parameters set out by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others AIR 1992 SC 604, Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 574 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 793. The criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. 31.3.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE