Shri Dharamukkala Srinivasa Rao vs . 1.State Of Meghalaya Represented on 11 April, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Shri Dharamukkala Srinivasa Rao vs . 1.State Of Meghalaya Represented on 11 April, 2025

                                                        2025:MLHC:295




Serial No.02
Supple List
                      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                          AT SHILLONG


Crl. M.C. No.26 of 2025 in
Crl. Petn No.20 of 2025                   Date of Order: 11.04.2025
 ____________________________________________________________
Shri Dharamukkala Srinivasa Rao Vs. 1.State of Meghalaya represented
S/o Late D. Suryanarayana           by the Secretary Government of
Deputy General Manager(Contracts) Meghalaya, Home (Police)
M/s BSC-C&C Joint Venture at        Department.
BSCPIL, Plot No. 30,
Institutional area - Sector 32,     2. Superintendent of police(Crime)
Gurugram, Haryana.                  East Khasi Hills District, Shillong
                                    Meghalaya.

                                      3.Dy Superintendent of police
                                      (Crime) East Khasi Hills District,
                                      Shillong, Meghalaya.

                                      4.Chief Engineer (NH), PWD
                                      (Roads), Shillong, Meghalaya
                                      East Khasi Hills District,
                                      Meghalaya.

..... Applicant.                         .....Opposite Parties.

Coram:
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A. A. Tiwari, Sr. Adv. With
                                  Mr. A. Raghuvanshi, Adv.
                                  Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.
                                  Ms. G. C. Marboh, Adv.


                                                                    Page 1 of 5
                                                             2025:MLHC:295




For the Respondent(s)            : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with

Mr. A. S. Pandey, GA.

ORAL:-

The applicant is employed as the Deputy General Manager
(Contracts) in M/s BSC-C&C Joint Venture at BSCPIL, Gurugram, Haryana
and also an authorized representative of the said company for dealing with
the disputes before Dispute Redressal Board (DRB), Arbitration and Courts
with the Opposite Party No.4.

By this application, the applicant has prayed for staying of the FIR
dated 10-09-2024 registered before the Sadar P.S Case No. 286 (9) of 2024
under Section 120B/409/420/471/477A/468/34 IPC.

Mr. A. A. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.
Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
dispute involved in this matter arose out of a contractual work which is
purely civil in nature. He submitted that the opposite party No.4 was forced
to pay an amount of INR. 91 Crores (approx.) to the company of the
applicant in terms of the order passed in an arbitration proceeding, which
was subsequently upheld by the High Court and the Apex Court. He
submitted that the opposite party No.4 after being forced to pay the aforesaid
amount has sought to attach criminality to the civil dispute and filed the
impugned FIR dated 10-09-2024 in total abuse process of law. He submitted
that even if the FIR is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety, no
prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Drawing attention to the
various allegations made in the FIR, the learned Senior Counsel submitted
that there is no whisper of commission of any criminal offence by the
applicant. He submitted that the criminal proceeding has been initiated with

Page 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:295

malice and ulterior motive to coerce the employer of the applicant into
giving up their legitimate contractual claim, which are pending adjudication
in arbitration. The learned Senior Counsel drew support from the
observations made by this Court in its order dated 19-06-2023 in Arbitration
Appeal No.6 of 2023 and submitted that no blame or misconduct had been
attributed to the applicant and his employer; the order of the High Court has
not been interfered by the Apex Court by its order dated 07-08-2023. He
submitted that the FIR is fraught with malice and the malicious intention of
the opposite party No.4 is apparent as the motive is to dissuade the applicant
from advancing his legitimate contractual right and to pressurize the
applicant to succumb to the demand of the opposite party No.4. He further
submitted that none of the ingredients of the offences under which the case
has been registered are present in the allegations made in the FIR. He
submitted that there is strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant and
unless the FIR is stayed the applicant will suffer irreparable damage.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court (2019) 16 SCC 739,
Prof. R. K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. and on the
Judgment dated 20-03-2024 in the case of A.M. Mohan Vs. The State
represented by Sho & Anr.

The Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG assisted by Mr. A. S. Pandey, learned
GA appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, strongly objected
to the prayer made on behalf of the applicant and submitted that all the
essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section
120B/409/420/471/477A/468/34 IPC are vey much present in the FIR. He
submitted that in addition to the offences under IPC, the FIR has also been
filed for offences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1) (c), (d) and (e) read with
Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned AG
has drawn attention to the FIR and pointed out that there are clear allegations
Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:295

of collusion between the contractor and the erring officials of PWD (NH)
Roads in causing loss to the public exchequer. He has also drawn attention
of this Court to the relevant entries made in the Ledger Account appended
with this petition in support of the allegation of collusion between the
applicant and DRB members. The learned AG further referred to the various
observations made in the final award and submitted that there is clear
indication of connivance between the engineers and the applicant’s
company. It is also submitted by the learned AG that the Apex Court while
disposing of the SLP (Civil) No. 16223/2023 has kept all rights and
contentions of the parties open and the collusion between the applicant and
the persons named in the FIR came into light after revelation of the facts in
the adjudication of dispute between the parties. He, therefore, submitted that
no case has been made out by the applicant for stay of the FIR and prayed
that the application may be rejected.

Upon hearing the rival parties and on perusal of materials on record, it
is clear that the facts revealed during the course of arbitration proceeding led
to the suspicion of commission of several criminal acts by the persons
named in the FIR and other unknown persons in conspiracy with officials to
defraud the public exchequer of huge amounts. The FIR dated 10-09-2024
contains details of many instances of such alleged criminal act disclosing
payment of cash for purchase of gift items to the government officials and
local administration. There are also allegations of providing wine bottles,
costly gift items by way of bribe by the contractor to the government
officials/engineers. That apart, the documents attached with the FIR also
gives rise to the suspicion of influencing sales tax officers, IOCL Officials,
officers of PWD department, MoRTH officials and DRB members.
Furthermore, the final award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 12-12-2024 also

Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:295

indicates existence of connivence between the engineers and the officials of
the applicant’s company.

In view of the above, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the FIR
contains no allegation against the applicant and, hence, the prayer for stay of
investigation is hereby rejected.

The application stands disposed of.

Judge
Meghalaya
11.04.2025
“Biswarup PS”

Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.04.12 08:51:17 IST