JUDGMENT : Notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been effected. On 11.08.2022 the matter was adjourned by way of last opportunity to the O.P. No. 2. However, today on repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and in that view of the matter this case is heard on merit. 2. Heard Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1143 of 2007 against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in that Court. 4. The complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant is a nominated and constituted power of attorney holder Pravina Khan and Safina Khan, both daughter of late Imamul Hai Khan, resident of Loharkulhi, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District-Dhanabd to look after and manage their properties. It was alleged that the aforesaid ladies, late Imamul Hai Khan gifted 35 decimals of land along with house situated over plot no. 2089 under khata no. 144 an 104 of mouza Sariadhela, No. 8, by registered deed of Gift No. 3843 dated 19.12.1983. Both the ladies thereafter mutated their names in the Sherista of the State of Bihar, vide Mutation Case No. 12 (II) Saraidhela/1984-85 and paying rent under Khata No. 1174 to the State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand. One S.M. Mansoor Mozaffar, son of S.M. Izharul Hasan wanted to purchase the part of the aforesaid land belonging to the Pravina Khan and Safina Khan and entered into an agreement of sale on 16.08.2003 for purchasing 2 and ½ kathas along with house situated thereon. On the request of the said purchaser, the aforesaid two ladies sent the complainant as their representatives with S.M. Mansoor Muzaffar with their original documents to the petitioner who is Branch Manager, who took the original documents/papers from the complainant and asked the complainant that the aforesaid documents are being sent to their advocates for opinion and assured the complainant that the original documents shall be returned after obtaining the legal opinion and on belonging the version of petitioner to be true, the complainant left the aforesaid documents with the petitioner. It was alleged that even after repeated request and demand made by the complainant, the accused persons did not return the original documents after taking the legal opinion from their advocate, the present case has been filed 5. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a nominated and constituted power of attorney holder of Pravina Khan and Safina Khan, both daughter of late Imamul Hai Khan. He further submits that the said purchaser S.M. Mansoor Muzaffar applied for housing loan to the accused persons Bank i.e. ICICI Home Finance, Shastri Nagar, Bank More Branch, Dhanabd and it has been alleged that petitioner being the Branch Manager of the said bank asked S.M. Mansoor Muzaffar to bring all the original documents for verification and for obtaining legal opinion in the matter before sanctioning the loan. It was alleged that even after repeated request and demand made by the complainant, the accused persons did not return the original documents after taking the legal opinion from their advocate, the present case has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Limited, Shastri Nagar, (East), Bank More, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad has been made accused, however, the name of the Branch Manager who has committed the offence has not been mentioned. He submits that in the criminal case the cognizance is required to be taken against the person and not against the post. According to him the post of Branch Manager is a post successor in interest and without particular Branch Manager who has committed offence, no action could be taken against the present Branch Manager. He further submits that inspite of that present case has been filed on the false allegation that the original document has not been returned by the Bank. He submits that cognizance order is bad in law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court after considering the complaint and solemn affirmation has taken cognizance. 8. On perusal of entire documents it transpires that the Bank in question has been made accused and the name of the Branch Manager has not been disclosed. The petitioner at that time was posted as Branch Manager or not, is not disclosed in the complaint petition or the order taking cognizance. 8. On perusal of entire documents it transpires that the Bank in question has been made accused and the name of the Branch Manager has not been disclosed. The petitioner at that time was posted as Branch Manager or not, is not disclosed in the complaint petition or the order taking cognizance. Section 420 I.P.C. speaks of imprisonment for 7 years. It is well settled that the company cannot be sent to jail and the order is not required to be passed by the learned court which cannot be implemented. Order taking cognizance has been passed against the post and not against the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1143 of 2007 is set aside. 10. The matter is remitted back to the concerned learned court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. This petition stands disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any, stands, disposed of. Interim order is vacated.