JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon O.P. No. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the Opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 of the IPC pending in the court of learned JMFC, Jamshedpur as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC against the employees of the petitioner company. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the two non-existent posts of the petitioner-company, namely General Manager (EPC), JUSCO and accused no. 2 being the Purchase Head, JUSCO which are non-existent posts, entrusted some work to be done by the complainant, firstly, for GOC, Burmamines and Tata Steel Division, TACP, but did not make the payment of the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused no. 1 being the General Manager (EPC), JUSCO and accused no. 2 being the Purchase Head, JUSCO are non-existent post of the company JUSCO, which has been renamed as Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited (TATA STEEL UISL). It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of eight years without any plausible reason and the co-accused General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO are non-existent designations of the company. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the bill of Rs. 3,44,404/-, a sum of Rs. 3,39,965/-has been paid to the complainant and against the bill of 28,32,783/-a sum of Rs. 25,93,314/-has been paid to the complainant through RTGS and cheque and the petitioner is claiming outstanding dues on the basis of an inflated claim. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is civil dispute and no offence punishable under section 420 or 406 of IPC is made out and the order of the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is civil dispute and no offence punishable under section 420 or 406 of IPC is made out and the order of the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as admitted by the Enquiry Witnesses No. 4 namely Rajesh Kaibarta and Enquiry Witnesses No. 5 namely Santosh @ Prem Shankar, the work allotted by the JUSCO, which is a body corporate being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, but the said company has not been arrayed as an accused. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Bokaro Steel Plant and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2003 (0) Supreme (Jhk) 1402 and also in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Another dated 28.08.2023, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1211 of 2023 and submits that therein, this court has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court, in the case of Suma Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others in Cr. M.P. No. 741 of 2016 dated 21.06.2017, Para 22, 24 and 27 of which reads as under: “22. In the case of Krishnan and Another vs. Krishnaveni and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 241 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to Section 11 of the I.P.C. has held that the word ‘person’ would, therefore, include not only natural person but also juridical person in whatever form designated and whether incorporated or not. Thus, there are two types of persons – natural person and juridical person, i.e., a legal person. This legal person is a subject matter other than a human being to which the law attributes personality. 24. It is also worthwhile to note the provisions for issuance of summons in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issuance of summons is governed under Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 62 prescribes as to how a summon should be served. Section 62(2) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that, the summon shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. Issuance of summons is governed under Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 62 prescribes as to how a summon should be served. Section 62(2) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that, the summon shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. Sub section (3) of the said Section further provides that every person on whom summon is so served, shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate. Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. provides as to how a summon should be served on corporate bodies and societies. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Section 62 provides for service of summons on persons and Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. provides for service of summons on corporate bodies and societies. The word 'person' is not defined in Code of Criminal Procedure, but Section 2(y) of the Cr.P.C. provides that words and expressions used in the Code of Criminal Procedure and not defined, but defined in Indian Penal Code have meaning respectively assigned to them in that Code. This means that definition of the word 'person', as mentioned in the I.P.C. will apply to Cr.P.C. also. So, it is clear that summons can only be issued against a natural person, who has to sign and receive a copy of the same or in case of corporates in the manner prescribed in the Code. 27. In the case in hand, Bharat Coking Coal Limited – a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, is not an accused and no allegation has been attributed against the Company. The accused are: (1) Chief Manager, B.C.C.L., Kusunda Area; (2) Project Officer, B.C.C.L., Godhar Colliery; (3) Deputy Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L., Godhar Colliery; (4) Chief Office Clerk, B.C.C.L., Godhar Colliery; against whom summons have been ordered to be issued. Since these are the post/designation of the employees of the Company, they are neither a natural or juridical person. Further, the I.P.C. does not attribute any personality to these posts. That being the position, they cannot be summoned to face trial independently. Since these are the post/designation of the employees of the Company, they are neither a natural or juridical person. Further, the I.P.C. does not attribute any personality to these posts. That being the position, they cannot be summoned to face trial independently. It is pertinent to mention here that the juridical person, i.e. the Company B.C.C.L. is not an accused in the complaint case.” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that since the General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO are the posts / designations of employees of the company, so they are neither natural nor juridical persons, hence, the summon ought not to have been issued to the petitioner being the General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO, more so, when the complaint was filed on 08.01.2021. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another, (2007) 7 SCC 373 , Para 8 of which, reads as under: “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’. Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” And submits that it is a settled principle of law that when the dispute between the parties, is essentially a civil dispute, nonpayment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781 , Para 11 of which, reads as under: “11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the Company, the Company has not been made a party and, therefore, the allegations are restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the Company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241 in the context of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.” And submits that principally the allegations are against the company and the company has not been arrayed as a party, hence, no proceeding can be initiated against it even when vicarious liability is fastened upon the employees of the petitioner company under certain statutes; but here in this case, the offences punishable are being under the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which does not envisage vicarious liability, the prosecution against the post of the company, without arraying the company, as accused is not sustainable in law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Akhtar Shakeel v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Cr. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Akhtar Shakeel v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Cr. Appeal No. (S) 217 of 2020, Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. (S) 8483 of 2020 dated 03.02.2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that one should not lose the sight of the fact, that the FIR has been lodged long after the limitation to file a suit for recovery of money dues has long expired. It therefore, very legitimately leads to the inference that the institution of the criminal prosecution was basically to overcome the bar of limitation in preferring any money claim and continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Special PP on the other hand vehemently, opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 and submits that allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of the enquiry witness is sufficient to constitute the offences, for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no doubt that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in respect of two posts being the General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO, and arrayed them as accused by post and designation and there is no allegation of such post holders having done any illegal activity in their personal capacity nor there is any overt act alleged to have been committed by them on behalf of the company. The fact also remains undisputed, that no such post exists in the petitioner company. 12. The fact also remains undisputed, that no such post exists in the petitioner company. 12. Further, in view of the judgment in the case of Suma Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra), this court has no hesitation in holding that the said two posts being the General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO, having arrayed as posts and designation, even though they are neither juridical person nor natural person. Further, in the absence of any specific allegation of overt act, committed by the said two General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO of the company and even if the allegation made in the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witness, are treated to be true in its entirety still in the considered opinion of this court, neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out and continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 be quashed and set aside against the employees of the petitioner company. 14. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 is quashed and set aside against the said two posts being the General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO of the petitioner company. 15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and accordingly, the interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.