The judgment established that vicarious liability cannot be imposed on individuals in the absence of specific statutory provisions, and it emphasized the significance of amicable settlements in civil disputes.

Heard Ms Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Shahin Begum, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No. 108 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.1756 of 2011, whereby, finding a prima facie case to be made out under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and they have been summoned to face trial.

3. The aforesaid police case has been instituted on the basis of a written report submitted by the opposite party no.2 to the Officer-in-Charge of Gandhi Maidan Police Station on 17.04.2011. In the written report, it has been alleged that Mr. N.S. Bapna-Chief Managing Director, petitioner no.1, Mr. Mohammed Sagir- Circle Head, petitioner no.2, Mr. Anirban Sadhukhan- Regional Manager, petitioner no.3, Mr. Vikrant Singhal- Director, petitioner no.4, Mr. Paresh Pathak- Zonal Manager, petitioner no.5, Mr. Rajesh Subramanian- Director, petitioner no.6, Mr. Sanjay Mathur- Accountant, petitioner no.7, all employees of M/s NSB BPO Solutions Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and one Mr. Sushil Agrawal, owner of NSB BPO office premises, approached M/s S.Tel Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.2) through its abovementioned officials and tried to persuade the Opposite Party No.2 that they would be able to provide them services in terms of or pertaining to collection of pre-paid customer enrollment forms/post-paid customer enrollment forms/ value added service enrollment forms/ customer enrollment forms (hereinafter referred to as the CAFs) and for any other services provided, as well as verification, management, safe custody, reporting of the same in conformity with the applicable law, regulation and statutory stipulations and compliance with the directions, instructions, guidelines, to be issued by the Opposite Party, from time to time.

4. It has further been alleged that the Company, knowing fully well that they did not have the requisite infrastructure or capital or means to cater to the demands of the Opposite Party No.2, made false representations and claims through its officers so as to get into an agreement with the Opposite Party No.2. Thus, believing the assurances made by the Company, the Opposite Party No.2 entered into an agreement with the Company on 1st of April, 2010 to do the aforementioned jobs relating to processing etc. of the CAFs.

5. It has been alleged that the Company through the abovenamed petitioners had promised to collect the documents, scrutinize and check their veracity and deliver the same to the Opposite Party No.2 or its authorized agents, after first and second level scrutiny within 72 hours of the collection of the CAFs but the petitioners neglected to do the work as undertaken and as a result thereof, serious delay resulted in processing of forms and verification of documents.

6. It has further been alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 made repeated requests, reminders and follow-ups with the Company through the abovenamed petitioners, but none of them ever tried to give any clarification or take remedial steps and the neglect of their work and undue delays on the part of the Company in processing of the CAFs has exposed the Opposite Party No.2 to serious legal, regulatory and penal consequences. In the aforesaid factual situation, the Opposite Party No.2 was constrained to terminate the agreement dated 1st April, 2010 with the Company, vide letter dated 18th November, 2010 sent through registered post and courier to the Company’s address. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 called upon the Company through the abovenamed petitioners to return all t