JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2022 in connection with Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022 whereby and where under, learned JMFC, Giridih found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC to proceed against the Director of the petitioner company and also the Director of the predecessor company of the petitioner in the name and style of M/s Wireless T.T. Info Services Limited. 3. The brief facts of the case is that M/s Wireless T.T. Info Services Limited entered into a lease agreement with the complainant to use the space of the complainant for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating the tower and allied activities for a period of fifteen years for a fixed monthly fee. The company- M/s Wireless T.T. Info Services Limited paid license fee till the month of October, 2018 but thereafter, they defaulted in payment of the license fees, with the allegation that M/s Wireless T.T. Info Services Limited which was acquired by the petitioner, without any prior intimation to the complainant, has misappropriated and cheated a sum of Rs. 6,56,803/-. The complainant approached the police but as no action was taken, hence, the complainant filed the Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022. Learned JMFC, Giridih, basing upon the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses vide order dated 16.09.2022 found sufficient materials to proceed against the Director of the petitioner company and also the Director of the predecessor of the petitioner in the name and style of M/s Wireless T.T. Info Services Limited. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 22.04.2024 passed in CrMP No. 2956 of 2022 submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1211 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023, paragraph no. dated 22.04.2024 passed in CrMP No. 2956 of 2022 submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1211 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023, paragraph no. 7 of which reads as under :- “Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that by now it is a settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person. Hence, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality by issuing summons against the “Bank Manager of IDBI Bank, Sector 4, Bokaro” by not naming the person who was responsible for the said criminal act of being instrumental in opening a forged account of the son of the complainant.” and has reiterated the settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case to face trial, cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in terms of the clause 9 of the Lease and License Agreement dated 28.03.2009 with the complainant, by adopting due procedure of law, has terminated the contract with the complainant vide termination notice dated 18.07.2019 as the site became non-operational and requested the complainant to remove the mobile tower and its equipment installed but the same was not permitted by the complainant, unless and until the payment of license fees for the entire contract period was made by the petitioner to the complainant. 6. It is next submitted that the petitioner company has six Directors but none of them stayed or ever posted at Patliputra colony, Patna, Bihar or Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad i.e. the address of the accused as mentioned in the complaint of the Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022. 7. It is next submitted that thus, the petitioner is not liable to pay the allegedly misappropriated amount as contended by the complainant in the complaint, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1012 of 2022. 7. It is next submitted that thus, the petitioner is not liable to pay the allegedly misappropriated amount as contended by the complainant in the complaint, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer made by the petitioner and submit that the Directors of the petitioner company were squarely responsible for default in payment of the license fees, which amounts to the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1211 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023 relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suma Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2016 , paragraph no.27 of which reads as under:- “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. 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.” and has reiterated the settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued to a post without mentioning the name of the person who is holding the post; as a post is not a juridical person. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner company has six Directors. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner company has six Directors. The Director is either a position or a post but nor a juridical person. The petitioner company has not been arrayed as an accused in the Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022 and no overt act has been attributed in the name of any specific Director in the complaint. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022 of the court of learned JMFC, Giridih, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case no. 1012 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 13. This writ is petition is disposed of accordingly.