JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.05.2019 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint (C/1) Case No. 3290 of 2018 whereby summons has been issued against the petitioners after finding a prima facie case under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of the Penal Code, 1860.

2. Opp. Party No. 2/complainant has a partnership firm in the business of trading and transporting of lime stone having its head office at Sonari, Jamshedpur while the petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is C.M.D. of the company and petitioner No. 3 is the Director of the company. The office of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is situated in Delhi.

3. It is alleged that on 22.05.2015, petitioner No. 1 through other petitioners induced the opposite party No. 2 to enter into a contract for supply lime stone lumps and in pursuance of it issued purchase order being No. MISL/DRM/RMHS/2015000007 in the office of the opposite party No. 2, situated at Sonari, Jamshedpur, for supply of 4000 MT of the grade 10-40 MM lime stones of the quantity worth Rs. 67,00,000/-. The agreed mode of payment was “material cost will be paid after 60 days from the date of issuance of R/R (Railway receipt)”. The Opp. Party No. 2 accepted the said purchase order and accordingly supplied 3690.87 MT of lime stone as ordered by the accused persons worth Rs. 64,92,862.55/- from Paradip Port by railway rake under R/R No. 211004807 on 21.07.2015 and the same was delivered at Kalinga Nagar site of the petitioners.

4. In terms of the said purchase order, Opp. Party No. 2 issued a bill against the supply of the material after expiry of 60 days from the date of issuance of R/R but the petitioners did not pay any amount against the said bill. After much persuasion, in the month of June, 2016 a meagre sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid by the petitioners to the Opp. Party No. 2. It is further alleged that thereafter the Opp. Party No. 2 on several occasions, demanded the balance payment of Rs. 58,92,862/- through mails and telephonic conversation with all the petitioners, but no payment had been made till date. Thereafter, the Opp. Party No. 2 sent a request letter along with banking details on 22.03.2018 under reference no. SALER/063/17-18, but again no payment was made by the petitioners, resultantly the complaint case was filed on 27.11.2018

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Court had overlooked the fact that petitioner No. 1 being a registered company under the Companies Act, as such, cannot be made as an accused in a criminal proceeding for the acts of its agents or servants and the mens rea of such agents or servants cannot be attributed to the company. It is submitted that a corporate body is included in the definition of “person” under Section 11 of IPC, however, there are certain offences which could be committed by an individual human being and a corporate body could not, therefore, be capable of committing such offences. The certain offences are to be punished only with imprisonment and it would not be possible to impose a punishment of imprisonment on corporate bodies.

6. In support of the contention that a company cannot be prosecuted, reliance has been placed on State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport Co. (P) Ltd. AIR 1964 Bom 195 and Ravindranath Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. Criminal Appeal No. 1047-1058/2021, decided on September 27, 2021 wherein it has been held that the criminal proceedings cannot be kick-started against the directors and other management personnel of a company in absence of specific allegations and their role in the crime. The Supreme Court in passing this order re-affirmed its earlier judgments in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 and Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 whic