Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 217 (JHR)

Sardar Ravi Inder Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-02

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C-1 Case No. 192 of 1998 including the order dated 07.04.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 406/34 of the I.P.C. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was at that point of time Chairman and Managing Director of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd., Jamshedpur. It has been submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature since there is no entrustment of property, no case under Section 406 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that in similar circumstances, in the case of General Manager (Works), Vice President (Corporate) and Senior Manager(Marketing and Sales), the criminal prosecution against those persons were quashed vide order dated 05.01.2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5298 of 1999(R). He further submits that the case of the petitioner stands on better footing to those whose cases have been quashed by this Court. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that he has instruction not to oppose this application. 5. It appears that considering the allegations made in the complaint petition, this Court had quashed the criminal case instituted against the other accused persons and the relevant portion of the order is quoted herein: "Here in the instant case, it is never the case of the complainant that these petitioners have been entrusted with the property nor it is the case of the complainant that the said property was misappropriated dishonestly by these petitioners rather it is the case of the complainant that the billets pursuant to agreement arrived at in between the complainant company and Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd., Jamshedpur were supplied by the complainant-company for its conversion of wire rods and, therefore, even if any criminal breach of trust is made out, that is made out against the accused-company and not against these petitioners. In this respect, I am refer to a decision rendered in a case of " Keki Hormusji Gharda and others v. Mehervan Rustom Irani and another ( (2009) 6 SCC 475 ) , wherein it has been held as under :- "The Penal Code, 1860 save and except in some matters does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a person. Commission of an offence by raising a legal fiction or by creating a vicarious liability in terms of the provisions of a statute must be expressly stated. The Managing Director or the Directors of the Company, thus, cannot be said to have committed an offence only because they are holders of offices. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, in our opinion, was not correct in issuing summons without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter. The Managing Director and the Directors of the Company should not have been summoned only because some allegations were made against the Company" Under the aforesaid facts and in view of the decision rendered in the case referred to above, the court below appears to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against these petitioners." 6. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, his case is squarely covered by the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5298 of 1999 (R). As regards, petitioner no. 1 who is the company, the allegations which have been made in the complaint petition is of not supplying wire rods after being paid conversion charge. Such act on the part of the petitioner no. 1 cannot invite any criminal consequence, as the said act at best invites civil consequences. The allegations made in the complaint case also does not constitute an offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned and continuation of criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court and will lead to miscarriage of justice. 7. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C-1 Case No. 192 of 1998 including the order dated 07.04.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is quashed and set aside. 8. This application is allowed. 9. Pending I.As. also stand disposed of.