Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. No one appears for the private respondent No.2 in spite of repeated calls, even though, the name of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 appears in the cause list. 2. The petitioner being the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Maruti Udyog Ltd. has been made accused in Complaint Case No. 365 of 1999 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for the offence under Section 406, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. The petitioner prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as against him in the said criminal case. 3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The respondent No.2 Prabhash Chandra Roy had filed a complaint case before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, which was registered as Complaint Case No.365 of 1999, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner who was accused No.4 in the said complaint case and the other co-accused persons had widely advertised that Ashish Automobiles at 15, Ranchi Club Complex, Main Road Ranchi, was authorised to take orders for delivery of the Maruti cars and Vans manufactured by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. of which the petitioner was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the said advertisement was issued within the knowledge and with consent of the petitioner and believing on the said advertisement, the complainant had deposited Rs.2,01,000/- by way of two account payee demand drafts on 8.12.1998 for booking a Maruti car. The said drafts were issued in favour of the Corporation Bank Account Maruti Udyog Ltd. 4. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. Rather, the allegation is against the Ashish Automobiles with whom the vehicle was booked, who had assured the complainant to deliver the vehicle within 4 to 5 weeks, but the said vehicle was not delivered and ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint petition in the Court below in which the petitioner was also made an accused being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd., along with other accused persons who were Ashish Automobiles and its officials. Thus, from the complaint petition, it is apparent that only allegation against the petitioner is that the money was deposited in the name of Maruti Udyog Ltd. of which the petitioner was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and in spite of assurance given by the dealer, neither the car was delivered nor the money was refunded to the complainant. 5. Several other such cases were filed against the said Ashish Automobiles in which the petitioner being the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. was also made accused and one such case was Chutia P.S. Case No.78 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1355 of 1999, which was also instituted for the offence under Section 406/34 of the I.P.C., mainly on the same allegations. 6. The question arose in the said Chutia P.S. Case No.78 of 1999 whether the petitioner being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Maruti Udyog Ltd. was vicariously liable for the offence under Section 406/34 of the I.P.C. This was considered by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.130 of 1999(R), which was allowed by Judgment dated 5.1.2012, wherein the various precedents on this point were discussed and it was held that though there may be civil liability of the petitioner being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd., to see that either the car was delivered to the complainant or his money was paid with due interest, but so far as the criminal liability is concerned, it was found that there was no criminal liability on the petitioner in view of the fact that there was no specific allegation of any offence committed by the petitioner in the entire complaint petition and as such, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was found to be absolutely illegal. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said Chutia P.S. Case No.78 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1355 of 1999, so far as it related to petitioner, was quashed. The Judgment of the said case is reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171 . 7. In the present case, I find that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the said Cr.W.J.C. No.130 of 1999(R) in R.S.S.L.N. Bhaskarudu Vs. The State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Another, reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171 . The Judgment of the said case is reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171 . 7. In the present case, I find that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the said Cr.W.J.C. No.130 of 1999(R) in R.S.S.L.N. Bhaskarudu Vs. The State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Another, reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171 . As such without discussing the law on the subject again in detail, it is directed that the Judgment reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of present case also and in the present case also, there is no criminal liability on the petitioner and as such, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the entire criminal proceeding, in Complaint Case No. 365 of 1999 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, so far as it relates to this petitioner only, is hereby, quashed. This writ application is accordingly, allowed.