JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner herein takes exception to order dated 10/11/2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharsia in Complaint Case No. 125/2022 by which bailable warrant has been issued against him for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

i) Respondent No. 2/complainant moved an application under Section 200 of CrPC along with an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC in which learned Magistrate recorded the statements of respondent No. 2/complainant and his son Dev Singh Yadav and vide order dated 12/10/2022, he took cognizance of above-stated offences against Accused No. 1 - Setram Kapileshwar Patel, Accused No. 2 - J.S.W. Ispat Special Product Ltd. and Accused No. 3 - Rahul Gupta and accordingly, issued summons to them.

ii) On 03/11/2022, service report was received and since summons were issued to Accused No. 1 and 2 and both of them failed to appear, bailable warrant was issued to them for their appearance on 14/11/2022, however, summon issued to Accused No. 3 came back unserved stating that he is not working at Accused No. 2 Company and as such, fresh summons were issued to him on his correct address and matter was fixed for 14/11/2022. iii) In the meanwhile, learned Magistrate received a copy of order dated 07/11/2022 (Rajkumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh) by which application filed by said Rajkumar Patel, Manager of Accused No. 2 Company for anticipatory bail stood rejected.

iii) Taking cognizance of order dated 7/11/2022 rejecting anticipatory bail application of Rajkumar Patel, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that petitioner is the Manager of Accused No. 2 Company and after suo moto taking note of the fact that petitioner is the Manager of Accused No. 2 Company, issued bailable warrant against him vide impugned order dated 10/11/2022 which has been sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition on the ground that such an order is unsustainable, without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

3. Return has been filed principally by respondent No. 2/complainant stating that the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1/State has also filed the return stating that State is a formal party.

4. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order issuing process to the petitioner is bad and illegal and is gross misuse and abuse of process of law, as such, it is liable to be quashed for the following two reasons :-

i) the complaint, documents and the evidence/statement of respondent No. 2/complainant does not disclose any ingredients of the alleged offences even on the face of the record and there is no overt act or evidence against the petitioner to arraign him as an accused.

ii) The name of the petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in his personal capacity or in the capacity of a representative of the Accused No. 2 Company in the complaint. He has been subsequently arraigned in the court records without there being any order in the order sheet by the court or any material to implicate and array him in any capacity. Such kind of amendment is not a formal amendment and suffers from legal infirmity.

5. Per contra, Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant, would submit that learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly arraigned the petitioner as an accused after finding material against him and he has rightly proceeded to with issuance of bailable warrant against the petitioner on the basis of material available on record and since the impugned order is well-merited, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. Admittedly, in the complaint filed und