IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for imposing vicarious liability on directors in the context of corporate criminal liability, specific statutory provisions are required, and the criminal proceeding should not be allowed to proceed if the criminality is not made out.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R.S.Mazundar, the learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, the learned assisting counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2016 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.374 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The entire case is based on not providing the choice number for the vehicle in question after paying a sum of Rs.11,000/- for the same.

4. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 12.08.2016 against these petitioners.

By way of referring solemn affirmation he submits that the role of the petitioners played in such transaction has not been disclosed. He further submits that Celerio car was purchased by M/s Sudha Business Enterprises Private Limited and the company is not made an accused. He submits that the company has already deposited the amount and the form was duly submitted which was obtained from the office of the D.T.O. under the Right to Information Act contained at page-42 and 43. He submits that no ingredient of cheating from the very beginning is made out against the petitioners who happened to be the Directors of the said company/firm. He submits that when the petitioner came to know about the present case, a sum of Rs.11,000/- was already refunded by Annexure-3 to the main petition. He submits that when the company is not made an accused and if the allegations are made against the company the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated and to buttress his such argument he relied in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806 and he refers to paragraph nos.27 and 28 of the said judgment which are quoted below:

27. As held by this Court in the case of India Infoline Limited (supra), in the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments with respect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A1 & A6.

28. From the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents herein - accused nos. 1 to 8, there does not appear that the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about a prima facie case against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8. Merely because respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 are the Chairman/Managing Director/Executive Director/Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, as observed hereinabove, there are specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role. Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision applications and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process