IMPORTANT POINT
A cognizance order can be quashed if the allegations do not establish a prima facie case against the accused, particularly when the accused's involvement is based solely on vicarious liability without direct allegations of wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) :

1. The present application preferred for quashing of cognizance order dated 10-06-2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Tr. No. 980/15 arising out of complaint case No. 709/2015, whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner.

2. The complaint case No. 709/2015 leading to institution of Tr. No. 980/15 was lodged by one Lal Jharia Devi alleging interalias as follows:-

(i) It is alleged that the complainant and her husband, namely, Sona Lal Bhagat purchased a policy bearing No. 537138740 through the LIC agent, namely, Kameshwar Ram and thereafter, her husband gave Rs. 10,000/-per year to the LIC agent for deposit in his policy. Later on, they gave Rs. 23,060/-to Kameshwar Ram for deposit in the LIC but it was not deposited with the LIC. When the complainant and her husband went to demand her money back, the LIC agent, Kameshwar Ram refused to return the amount and snatched her belongings. When the complainant went along with some villagers at the residence of the agent, he refused to repay the amount.

(ii) It is further alleged that when the complainant intimated the Branch Manager (petitioner) about the conduct of the agent, he did not extend any cooperation rather told that the policy has lapsed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that implication of petitioner appears only being Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation (in short “LIC”), Marhawra Branch, District-Chapra. It is submitted that the entire occurrence of abuse and assault as alleged were taken place between O.P. No. 2 and main co-accused namely, Kameshwar Ram, against whom the thrust of allegations are available, who was the agent of LIC with whom the husband of O.P. No. 2 deposited Rs. 23,060/-to deposit it further with Policy No. 537138740 of LIC. It is submitted that from the face of complaint, it can be gathered easily that no prima facie case as alleged can be gathered against petitioner for the reasons that no allegation of abuse and assault is available against petitioner. It is submitted that maximum incriminating narrations what available against this petitioner is to reply O.P. No. 2 during course of conversation that no such amount as claimed was ever deposited with this branch of LIC. It is also submitted that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal proceedings, where implication of petitioner appears only for his vicarious liability being manager of the Marhawra Branch of LIC. It is further submitted that amount in issue was also alleged to be deposited with co-accused, Kameshwar Ram and as such present proceeding against petitioner is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of application/petition submitted that petitioner was responsible to monitor the activities of co-accused/LIC agent, Kameshwar Ram being manager of said branch of LIC.

5. It would be appropriate to reproduce the paragraph no. 102 of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, which reads as under :

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Whe