JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 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 of Complaint Case No. 236 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has directed for issuance of summons inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 468 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused-Rameshwar Poddar being the CMD of Ramel Industries Pvt. Ltd. has cheated and committed forgery for the purpose of cheating by opening a branch of Ramel Industries and making the innocent persons deposit their money but when the fixed deposits became mature, closed their establishment and fled away. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though admittedly two persons have been arrayed as CMD of Ramel Industries Pvt. Ltd but it is permissible in law, that only one person can be a CMD of any company, at a particular time. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is no way concerned with the Ramel Industries Pvt. Ltd. nor there is any allegation against him of personally doing anything to either cheat or commit forgery. Drawing attention of this Court to Form No. 32 kept at Annexure-2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition, it is submitted that the same displays the details of managing director and directors of Ramel Industries Pvt. Ltd. but nowhere the name of the petitioner appears either as Managing Director or as a Director. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused, which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, can be looked by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the veracity of Annexure-2 has not been challenged by the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 has not filed any counter affidavit, in this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is lastly submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, the prayer as made in the criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer but fairly submits that there cannot be two CMDs in one company at a time, as claimed by the complainant, in the complaint. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not challenged the veracity of Annexure -2 which is Form No. 32 issued by the Chartered Accountant of the company. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the petitioner of personally doing anything, in order to cheat or commit forgery and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, only because he has claim to be the CMD of Ramel Industries Ltd. 7. It is a settled principle of law that only because a person is a CMD of a company, in the absence of any allegation against him of doing any particular act for commission of the alleged offence, such a person cannot be arrayed as an accused, in respect of the offences provided in the Indian Penal Code. 8. It is a settled principle of law that only because a person is a CMD of a company, in the absence of any allegation against him of doing any particular act for commission of the alleged offence, such a person cannot be arrayed as an accused, in respect of the offences provided in the Indian Penal Code. 8. As has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there cannot be two CMDs of a company at any particular point of time. The veracity of Annexure-2 which goes to show that the petitioner is in no way concern with M/s Ramel Industries Pvt. Ltd. is not under challenged. Thus, the materials in the record goes to show that the petitioner is not the CMD of the Ramel Industries Ltd. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 236 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 236 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 12. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 28.06.2018 is vacated. 13. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. 14. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, Interlocutory Application No. 1944 of 2019 is disposed of being infructuous.