SRIRAM DWIVEDI, FARIDABAD Vs. P P , HYD ANO
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-97
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 18,2019

Sriram Dwivedi, Faridabad Appellant
VERSUS
P P , Hyd Ano Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R S RAGHUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.)The petitioner by name Shirshir Dwivedi (Vice President(Projects) of FIITJEE Foundation for Education and Training(for short, 'FIITJEE Foundation'), is A.3 among 4 accused in C.C.No.410 of 2015 on the file of the learned XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally which is outcome of Cr.No.408 of 2010, dt.22.05.2012 of Police Station, Panjagutta registered for the offences punishable u/sec.406 and 420 IPC from the private complaint, dt.11.04.2012 in Sr.No.2815 of 2012 of the 2nd respondent by name Edem Prasanth Kumar, Accounts Executive, Teekays Interior solutions Pvt. Ltd, Secunderabad against four accused viz: M/s FIITJEE Foundation represented by Rajeev Gupta(Manager-Projects) one Rajesh Sharma Executive Director Finance of M/s FIITJEE Foundation(A.1), Shishir Dwivedi(A.2), Vice President(Project) of M/s FIITJEE Foundation(A.3) and the Principal M/s FIITJEE Foundation respectively.
(2.)The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to police for investigation and it was on 22.05.2012 having received from the learned Magistrate u/sec.156(3)CrPC the crime supra was registered and after investigation by citing 6 witnesses including 4 Investigating Officers L.Ws. 3 to 6 besides the complainant as L.W.1 and one Bhasker Sarathy, Senior Manager Client Service of Entity as L.W.2 filed chargesheet and the learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the same against the accused saying the A.2 to A.4 in abscondence leave about A.3-the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.3346 of 2013, dt.16.09.2013 and later enlarged on bail.
(3.)The contents of the private complaint in registration of the crime supra are that the alleged offences taken place from 08.06.2010 onwards till April, 2012 at Yellareddygudem, Hyderabad, that the complainant company engaged in the business of interior projects including interior fit out, civil works, air conditioning, electrical works etc. with two decades marked reputation. The accused proposed to furnish interiors at their office, Yellareddygudem and consequently there was an agreement between the complainant and the accused on 08.06.2010, 09.06.2010 and 12.07.2011 with terms and conditions to commence and complete the interior work at accused premises D.No.8-3-897/5/1,Yellareddygudem for a total consideration of the contract of Rs.2,59,15,912/- and the complainant completed the work by mobilizing the material employing a huge work force however the work could not progress as planned as several site clearances and working drawings were not available during the execution. Right from the beginning the accused asked the complainant to carry out several major additional works which are not part of the original tender agreement, by promise to regularize and by releasing separate Non-Tender Items Order(NT order) immediately however the accused kept dodging the release of this NT Order with one pretext or other and as a result work was getting further delayed and the complainant could not raise the bills in time for works executed and even some bills raised and processed for payment but the accused released only part payments and tax amount also not paid in any of the interim bills and after a prolonged follow up for release of NT order including advance and release of payments of interim bills, the NT orders were released but the payments were made only in part, the bills were raised by the complainant after completion of 85% of the works and the same was also certified for making payment by the accused but not paid in spite of repeated requests and the complainant was constrained to stop further work as payment due from the accused is huge and while so, the accused issued notice on 09.08.2011, without making payment of works completed by the complainant, by threatening to engage third party for remaining work and when no alternative, the complainant filed Arbitration and Conciliation O.P.No.1942 of 2011 u/sec.9 of the Act before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad which is while pending, the accused engaged services of M/s J.S.Projects, Hyderabad in the first week of April, 2012 without knowledge and consent of the complainant so as to cause wrongful loss to complainant and with dishonest intention to cheat which the complainant came to know reliably when questioned the accused threatened them with dire consequences and thereby the accused committed the offence and are liable for punishment.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.