ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.3 of 2016 of Prathipadu P.S., East Godavari District. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 4th respondent herein approached the 3rd respondent and gave a written complaint stating that Thotapally Forest was notified as Reserve Forest under G.O.BP.No.289, dated 23.12.1937 which is situated in Sy.No. 1 of Chintaluru village of Prathipadu Mandal. It is stated that ht petitioner Firm has obtained mining lease in Sy No.262 of Gajjanapudi village and alleged to have illegally excavated six lakh metric tones of laterite mineral by altering Forest Boundaries from the year 1997 to 2005 instead of mining in the allotted area. It is further stated that the District Collector, East Godavari and the District Forest Officer, Kakinada issued instructions to file a criminal case and on their instructions, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered as Crime No.3 of 2016 against the petitioner under Sections 447, 379 and 420 IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent of the alleged offences with which he has been charged and is falsely implicated without there being any material to connect him with any of the alleged offences. The main grievance of the petitioner is that initiation of criminal prosecution without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, after lapse of 10 years is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the 6th respondent lodged a complaint at the behest of the District Collector, who has submitted report to the Government while issuing G.O.Ms.No.119 stating that the area applied by the petitioner Firm do not fall in Reserve Forest area and the Survey number is registered in village accounts as "KONDA PORAMBOKE". There is an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the complaint and absolutely there is no explanation in the complaint for filing of such an inordinate delay. Even though the petitioner was permitted to carry on quarry operations by the concerned authorities by following the procedure contemplated under law, without initiating any proceedings under the Forest Act for the alleged encroachment, launching of prosecution is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Even though the petitioner was permitted to carry on quarry operations by the concerned authorities by following the procedure contemplated under law, without initiating any proceedings under the Forest Act for the alleged encroachment, launching of prosecution is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2016 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction that the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2016 of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, shall continue. However, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile. 4. The 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that before the issue of mining lease either the Parameswari Minerals represented by the petitioner or Revenue Department and Mining Department officials had not taken up any joining inspection of the area proposed for mining lease with the Forest Department and also not obtained any clearance from the Forest Department. During the physical verification of the leased area as well as the adjoining forest area it is clearly found that the lessee did not excavate any mining material in the non forest area which was allotted to him by the Revenue and Mining Departments, but intentionally encroached into Reserve forest by altering the boundaries and excavated the mineral form the Thotapalli Reserve Forest area. It is further stated that the petitioner had not taken up any mining activity in the allotted area and intentionally carried out mining in the adjoining Thotapalli Reserve Forest area. Further the Parameswari Mineral was represented by mining partner Sri P.Ramakrishna in all its official proceedings on behalf of the company during the lease period. It is also submitted that during the recently enquiry only it is noticed that the illegal mining was carried out in the Forest area hence the delay occurred. 5. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition submits that during the period from 1997 to 2005 absolutely there was no allegation against the petitioner whatsoever including the payment of royalty and other taxes to the Government. Every tone of mineral was excavated and transported by following the procedure prescribed under law. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition submits that during the period from 1997 to 2005 absolutely there was no allegation against the petitioner whatsoever including the payment of royalty and other taxes to the Government. Every tone of mineral was excavated and transported by following the procedure prescribed under law. He further submits that, without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, initiation of criminal prosecution, after lapse of 10 years is highly illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the complaint and absolutely there is no explanation in the complaint for filing the complaint with such an inordinate delay Learned counsel mainly contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the Managing Partner of the Firm without showing the Firm as an accused. The entire business was done by the petitioner Firm and there cannot be any vicarious liability against the partner of the Firm under penal law and as such the FIR is not maintainable under law. He further submits that the petitioner was permitted to carry on quarry operations by the concerned authorities by following the procedure contemplated under law. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sushil Sethi and another versus State of Arunachal Pradesh and others 2020 INSC 118 : (2020) 3 Supreme Court Case 240, wherein it was held that : It is also required to be noted that the main allegations can be said to be against the company. The company has not been made a party. The allegations are restricted to the Managing Director and the Director of the company respectively. There are no specific allegations against the Managing Director or even the Director. There are no allegations to constitute the vicarious liability In the case of Maksud Sained v. State of Gujarat 2007 INSC 940 : (2008) 5 SCC 668 , it is observed and held by this Court that the penal code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company when the accused is the company. It is further observed and held that the vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. It is further observed that statute indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. It is further observed that even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. In the present case, there are no such specific allegations against the appellants being Managing Director or the Director of the company respectively. Under the circumstances also, the impugned criminal proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while denying the contents made by the petitioner contended that M/s. Parameswari Minerals represented by the petitioner herein permitted to carry out mining in S.No.262/1 of Gajjanapudi Village of Prathipadu Mandal, but they had illegally trespassed into Reserved forest and removed forest produce i.e., Laterite mineral from Thotapally Reserve Forest for which a forest offence case was already booked against the Parameswari Minerals represented by P.Ramakrishna vide Preliminary Offence Report (POR) No. 17 dated 23.12.2015 under provisions of AP/Forest Act 1967 and the action is under progress. Further the firm had excavated laterite mineral from Reserve Forest instead of allotted area in a preplanned manner with criminal intention and stolen the Government Property. Therefore a complaint was lodged against the firm represented by the petitioner for initiation of suitable criminal action. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also furnished a copy of letter received from the Sub Inspector of police, Prathipadu P.S., Kakinada District and submits that on receipt of a written report from the complainant Addagarla Thrimuthulu Reddy, a case in Crime No.3 of 2016 ws registered under Sections 447, 379, 420 IPC of Prathipadu Police Station, Kakinada District on 05.01.2016 and investigated the case. During the course of investigation, examined the complainant as LW. 1 and recorded his statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Later, the petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of A.P and Telangana and obtained stay order directing stay of investigation including arrest of the petitioner vide WPMP No. 1360 of 2016 in WP No. 1102 of 2016 and the stay order is in force. 9. As seen from the G.O.Ms. 9. As seen from the G.O.Ms. No. 93 Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 27.03.1998, wherein it was mentioned at para-22 to 25, as under: 22. With regard to the statement of Sri. T.Trinatha Reddy reproduced above it must be mentioned that sometimes mistakes da occur unconsciously, accidentally. The law recognizing the occurrence of mistakes has also made provision in rules 56 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 for rectification of mistakes within a fixed period of time. It is possible to rectify the mistake by following a different procedure as laid down in other provisions of Act, and Rules. The other procedure is not relevant to the instant case as the proposal for rectification is within the time of 2 years, stipulated in Rule 56 of Rules Rectification of a mistake after its comes to notice can only be a deliberate action. 23. The State Government have a duly to perform under Rule 56 of Rules, for -correcting a mistake when it comes to light, however, after giving a reasonable opportunity to an affected person for stating his case. As was suggested by Director of Mines and Geology' an opportunity was given to Sri. T.Trinatha Reddy by issuing him a show cause notice. The opportunity was availed by Sri. T. Trinatha Reddy by giving a reply to the show cause notice requesting however therein for a personal hearing. Within the scheme of the various provisions in the Act, and Rules, it may be required to be determined whether Sri. Trinatha Reddy and any other applicant for the purpose of the matter in this case is an affected person. 24. At the time of disposal of its application, the Government were aware only about the existence of the mining lease application of Parameswari Mineral is received on 25-3-1994. Even as on the date of submission of his proposal by the Director of Mines and Geology vide his letter dt. 10-4-95, there was no other application received for the area applied for by Parameswari Minerals. It was only during the course of processing of mining lease application of Parameswari Minerals at the Government level for final disposal that Sri. Veera Reddy, Sri. Suryanarayana Reddy, Sri. T. Trinatha Reddy made applications on 30-8-95 and Sri. P.V.S. Suryanarayana Raju made an application on 19-9-95 in the office of the Director of Mines and Geology. It was only during the course of processing of mining lease application of Parameswari Minerals at the Government level for final disposal that Sri. Veera Reddy, Sri. Suryanarayana Reddy, Sri. T. Trinatha Reddy made applications on 30-8-95 and Sri. P.V.S. Suryanarayana Raju made an application on 19-9-95 in the office of the Director of Mines and Geology. Making of applications by the said individuals on the stated dates has come to the notice of the Government only after disposal of the application of Parameswari Minerals and during the course of this Proceedings on the proposal of the Director of Mines and Geology for rectification of the error. This gives rise to the point whether the scheme of provisions in the Act and Rules entitles the individual to the parties in interest for the area applied by Parameswari Minerals. 25. There is no dispute that Parameswari Minerals application is the earliest for its applied area. By it being the earliest application it has preferential rights for grant under Section 11(2) of the Act over the subsequent applicants. Therefore, the subsequent applicants cannot be termed as affected persons in view of preferential rights for grant enjoyed by Parameswari Minerals for its applied area. However, the request of Sri. T. Trinatha Reddy for allowing him an opportunity of personal hearing as taken on record and a notice dt. 5-3-1998 calling Sri. T. Trinatha Reddy and Parameswari Minerals for a hearing on 17-3-1998 before the Minister for Mines and Geology was issued. The representatives of Parameswari Minerals appeared for hearing Sri. T.Trinatha Reddy either by (himself in person or through his advocate did not appear for the hearing even though notice of hearing was received by him as per postal acknowledgement on 9-3-1998 itself. No request from him seeking adjournment of hearing was also received. Put he submitted a representation inter-alia requesting to entrust the hearing of the case either to Principal, Secretary, Industries & Commerce department or to any Cabinet Minister for the reason of apprehension expressed that no justice can be done in his favour as he has a strong feeling that Parameswari Minerals has already approached for Minister for Mines and Geology. " 10. " 10. Moreover, as seen from the G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 16.05.1997, which is at page No.22 of the material on record, wherein it was mentioned at para-2, as under: The Collector, East Godavari District in his letter D.Dis.No.03/4164/94, dated 16.1.85 while reporting classification of the applied area as Konda Poramboke recommended grant of Mining Lease in favour of the applicant over the reduced extent of 17.58 acres. Subsequently the Collector, East Godavari District by Telegram bearing his reference No D3/4164/94 dated 25.5.95 requested to keep in abeyance the grant of Mining Lease to the applicant as the area of 17.58 acres computed for his application is suspected to be in Reserve Forest. In Government Memo.No.542/M.III(l)/95- 2. Industries, and Commerce Department dt 26.10.96 the Collector was requested to verify and confirm whether the applicants applied survey number is within Reserve Forest or not in response to the Govt. Memo., the Collector has reiterated his earlier report that the applied S.No. as registered in the village Account as Konda Poramboke. 11. It is the contention of the respondents that, the complainant-Dr. A.Trimurthulu Reddy, made a complaint dated 04.01.2016 to the Station House Officer, Prathipadu Police station, wherein he stated that the Thotapally Reserve Forest is notified under G.O.BP.No.289 dated 23.12.1937 and part of which is located in Sy.No.l of Chinthaluru village of Prathipadu Mandal and due to allegations raised by the public and after enquiry and field inspections, it is noticed that approximately 61akhs Metric tones of latent mineral was illegally mined and stolen from the compartment No.632 of Thotaplli Reserve Forest in Kothuru Forest beat of Sankhavaram section. It is further stated that during enquiry, it is revealed that the firm named "Parameswari Minerals" D No.3-6-521, Flat No.402 Gharonda Maya, Opp. KFC, Himayatnagar, Main Road, Hyderabad-500 029 represented by Sri P.Ramakrishna had obtained mining lease in Sy No.262 of Gajjanapudi village of Prathipadu Mandal for mining of laterite but by alteration of forest boundaries and illegally excavated 6 lakhs Metric tones of laterite mineral from the Thotapally Reserve Forest area fraudulently from the year 1997 to 2005 instead of mining in allotted area in Sy No.262 of Gajjanapudi village. 12. On perusing the FIR, it is noticed that the crime has been registered against the accused/petitioner under sections 447, 339 and 420 IPC. 12. On perusing the FIR, it is noticed that the crime has been registered against the accused/petitioner under sections 447, 339 and 420 IPC. However, it is required to be noted that there are no specific allegations and averments in the FIR that fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused. It is also observed that criminal proceedings were initiated against the Managing Partner of the Firm without showing the Firm as an accused. The entire business was done by the petitioner firm and there cannot be any vicarious liability against the partner of the Firm under penal law. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court observed that, the company has not been made a party. The allegations are leveled against the Managing Partner of the Firm without showing the Firm as an accused. Further, Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of company when the accused is the company. In the present case, it is also observed that, there are no specific allegations and averments in the complaint that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of entering into the contract. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot be said that even a prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out. It is also observed that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner being Managing Partner of the company. Under these circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner vide FIR No.3 of 2016 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, is hereby quashed. No costs. 15. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.