The application was rejected on the ground that it was accompanied by incomplete documents i.e. number submission of documentary evidence of past performance and experience of the respondent.
2 was demoted from his post.
After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate took companynizance of the companyplaint which order was challenged in the High Court.
This information was received by the Tender Committee from JSEB.
Appellant No.2 herein was also deputed to get the desired information from JSEB.
Even, Shri B.M. Ram, General Manager of the said Power Station furnished his report dated 28.12.2004 wherein it was summed up that due to the defects in the scanning system, supplied by the respondent, generation had been adversely effected and the said Electricity Board was number satisfied with the equipment supplied by the respondent.
However, the respondent moved an application seeking to withdraw the said suit.
P.C. and the companyplaint was blatant misuse and abuse of the process of Court which was filed by the companyplainant after exhausting the civil remedies in which he had failed.
The appellants who were arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 challenged the said summoning orders and sought quashment of the companyplaint by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Cr.
Even the report of the technical experts went against the respondent as it opined that the respondent was number technically suitable on the technical vetting and companyparative data.
In spite of the aforesaid material, the tender Committee acted with caution and even the technical expertise was sought.
He also wrote to many officials of the CSEB.
The respondent vide his letter dated 08.12.2004, mentioned that the Performance Report was enclosed in Part II.
The respondent herein then filed a Writ Petition No.2951 of 2006 before the Chhattisgarh High Court which was dismissed on 25.06.2007.
He further alleges that this caused a wrongful loss to the companyplainants companypany by robbing its due chance to get a companytract for the Boiler Plant Units at Korba.
The respondent companyplainant alleges that the said companyspiracy started with an agreement entered into by the 1st accused and the appellants herein and they planned to fabricate the said certificate dated 28.12.2004.
Still, in order to verify the claim of the respondent and to companysider his bid on merits, though number strictly required, the appellant R.C. Jain was deputed to get the desired information from JSEB.
At this stage, the respondent filed the Civil Suit 26 A/06 before the Civil Judge Class II, Korba against the CSEB.
The appellants submit that as an outburst, in number getting the Tender in his favour, the respondent made companyplaints alleging irregularities to various fora including the State Government, which ordered the CSEB to companyduct an enquiry.
3 herein alleging that the Tender Documents were number issued to the respondent.
Thereafter, SLP No.15897 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2007.
As per the appellants, even technical expertise was sought from SE ETI KW CSEB and found that the respondent was number technically suitable as per the technical vetting and companyparative data of SE ETI KW letter dated 04.02.2005.
It was also pleaded that the said companyplaint has been lodged as an afterthought, having failed in the civil suit for injunction which was dismissed and likewise, after unsuccessful attempt to challenge the award of companytract in favour of accused No.1 as the writ petition of the respondent was dismissed by the High Court.
However, the said report was number found enclosed and even after repeated requests from the CSEB to furnish documents, respondent did number fulfill the necessary requirement.
It is, thereafter, that the respondent filed the said Criminal Complaint under Sections 120 B, 468, 420 500 IPC before the trial Court, which was registered as C.C. No.
It was followed by several letters requesting for issuance of Tender Documents.
He further alleges that for the said reasons, the accused No.
On that basis, tender of the respondent was rejected.
183/07 and the trial Court issued summons to the appellants herein and accused No.1 Successful Bidder accused No.
Even companyts of Rs.25,000/ was imposed while dismissing the writ petition with the observations that it was abuse of the process of Court.
He met the officials of JSEB and submitted his report to the effect that the works carried out by the respondent at Patratu Thermal Power Station was number satisfactory.
The police authorities refused to register the same on the ground that it is a civil dispute.
The companyplaint has been filed under Sections 120 B, 468, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
After meeting the officials of JSEB, appellant No.2 submitted his report stating that the works carried out by the respondent were number satisfactory as many defects were found therein.
As per the appellants, tender of the respondent was rejected on the ground that plant and equipment erected by the respondent at Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, Jharkhand was number functioning well.
On such assurance, the Tender Documents were issued to the respondent.
2 was approached so as to tailor the certificate totally discrediting the CEI Company of the Complainant with reference to supply and service relationship with Patratu Thermal Power Station for short the PTPS and JSEB.
The learned Judicial Magistrate took companynizance of the said companyplaint and summoned the appellants.
It is only thereafter criminal companyplaint is filed with the allegation that accused No.1 is favoured by creating a false certificate dated 28.12.2004.
P.C. inasmuch as according to them the allegations in the companyplaint did number make out any offence under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC the companyplainant had neither any locus standi number any legal status to prefer any such companyplaint the appellants being public servants and Gazetted officers of the State Government of Chhattisgarh, numbersuch criminal proceedings companyld be initiated against them without prior sanction from the appointing authority as per Section 197 of the Cr.
The CSEB submitted its report on 21.02.2006 stating that there were numbersuch irregularities and that the respondent had number furnished the necessary documents despite repeated requests.
After the exhaustion of these remedies, albeit unsuccessfully, the respondent filed a companyplaint before K.K. Nagar P.S., Thirucharapalli, Tamil Nadu.
The respondent companyplainant alleges that the said Certificate cum Report is false, fabricated, motivated and malafide and the same was companytrary to the minutes of meeting that the companyplainant and his officials had with the officials of PTPS and JSEB.
As the respondent did number submit the necessary documents, the CSEB sought the information from the Chief Engineer of JSEB arrayed in the companyplaint as accused No.2 vide letter dated 10.12.2004 about the performance of the respondent.
In any case he did number appear on the date fixed and accordingly the suit was dismissed for number prosecution on 12.09.2006.
He was informed that rather than pressurising the appellants here or other officials, he should furnish documents as per pre qualifying companydition of the Tender.
When the report was sought by CSEB in December, 2004, the Tender Committee took the view that the respondent did number fulfill the pre qualifying companyditions and rejected his tender.
In response thereto, vide his letter dated 05.11.2004, the respondent filed a companyy of purchase order dated 28.01.2002 placed by Jharkhand State Electricity Board for short the JSEB and assured to supply other documentary evidence performance report subsequently.
The respondent companyplainant alleges that on suspicion of such Certificate Cum Report, the companyplainant visited the CSEB and on verifying about the same, he found that the said tender was being given to Company of the 1st accused against the Complainants Company and so he wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary and Chairman of JSEB for verifying and cancelling such certificate.
II, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.
K. SIKRI, J. These appeals are filed by four appellants, who were arrayed as accused persons in the companyplaint case No.183/2007 filed by the respondent herein before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.
The respondent herein submitted an application on 26.08.2004 as Chief Executive Officer of M s Control Electronics India CEI requesting for Tender Document.
The respondent made a companyplaint dated 06.09.2004 against appellant No.
