JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.34 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant-informant earlier filed Complaint Case No.2238 of 2020 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur when the matter was still pending the complainant-informant suppressing the material facts that he filed Complaint Case No.2238 of 2020, again filed another complaint being Complaint Case No.52 of 2022, para-1 to para-8 of which were word by word same as that of Complaint Case No.2238 of 2020 and just by replacing that the nature of offence punishable as under 406, 420, 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code while in the earlier complaint was filed the nature of offence was mentioned as under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Mr. Pratik Sen- learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraphs-13 and 26 of which read as under:- 13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant 1's son. No reference to this charge-sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200 CrPC filed by Respondent 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No. 158 of 2012. The wife's statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. The wife's statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. [Ram Dhan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 536 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 237] ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481] ). 26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that since it is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts and it is a matter of trite law that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand, hence, this is fit case where continuation of two cases for the same allegations by suppressing the material facts amounts to abuse of process of court, hence, the same be quashed. 5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sen relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil Agarwal & Others vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524 and submits that therein in the facts and circumstances of that case where the complainant first filed an application under Section 138 N.I. Act and subsequently filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of the F.I.R. and subsequently filed another F.I.R. suppressing the fact of earlier order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under in paragraphs-20 and 21 of the said judgment:- “20. Under the circumstances, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants. 21. We are not expressing anything on merits whether, any case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged in the Section 156(3) CrPC application as the same is pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is to take call on the same. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellant-accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 CrPC and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice.” 6. Mr. Sen next submits that the present complaint has been filed with the sole purpose of wrecking vengeance upon the petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.1 has been roped in the present case only due to the fact that he is the Director of J.K. Surface Coating Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner No.2 has been implicated in this case because he looks after the office at Jamshedpur and except that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners to show any indulgence and there is not even any allegation that the petitioners have issued any cheque. In support of his contention, Mr. Sen relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662 para-19 of which reads as under:- “19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the Company, even if the appellant was its Managing Director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefor. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a Company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the Company itself. (See Sabitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [ (2006) 10 SCC 581 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 621] .)” 7. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a Company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the Company itself. (See Sabitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [ (2006) 10 SCC 581 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 621] .)” 7. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.34 of 2022, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.34 of 2022. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that though the verbatim of both the complaints from para-1 to para-8 is same and both the complaints i.e. Complaint No.2238 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.52 of 2022 were filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur but the nature of the offence mentioned in the Complaint Case No.52 of 2022 is different. Hence, the same amounts to a separate case. The learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 lastly submit that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as it is undisputed fact that the para-1 to para-8 of both the complaints were word by word same. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the continuance of this complaint basing upon which Sonari P.S. Case No.34 of 2022 has been registered, amounts to abuse of process of court and as the same has been filed suppressing the material fact with the same verbatim in para-1 to para-8, another complaint being Complaint Case No.52 of 2022 was pending before the same court. Hence, in view of the settled principle of law as placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court is of the considered view that this is fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. be quashed and set aside. 10. Hence, in view of the settled principle of law as placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court is of the considered view that this is fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.34 of 2022, is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.