The court ruled that allegations against non-existent posts do not constitute a basis for criminal proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of specific accusations against individuals for liability.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon O.P. No. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the Opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 of the IPC pending in the court of learned JMFC, Jamshedpur as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC against the employees of the petitioner company.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the two non-existent posts of the petitioner-company, namely General Manager (EPC), JUSCO and accused no. 2 being the Purchase Head, JUSCO which are non-existent posts, entrusted some work to be done by the complainant, firstly, for GOC, Burmamines and Tata Steel Division, TACP, but did not make the payment of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused no. 1 being the General Manager (EPC), JUSCO and accused no. 2 being the Purchase Head, JUSCO are non-existent post of the company JUSCO, which has been renamed as Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited (TATA STEEL UISL). It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of eight years without any plausible reason and the co-accused General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO are non-existent designations of the company.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the bill of Rs. 3,44,404/-, a sum of Rs. 3,39,965/-has been paid to the complainant and against the bill of 28,32,783/-a sum of Rs. 25,93,314/-has been paid to the complainant through RTGS and cheque and the petitioner is claiming outstanding dues on the basis of an inflated claim. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is civil dispute and no offence punishable under section 420 or 406 of IPC is made out and the order of the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as admitted by the Enquiry Witnesses No. 4 namely Rajesh Kaibarta and Enquiry Witnesses No. 5 namely Santosh @ Prem Shankar, the work allotted by the JUSCO, which is a body corporate being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, but the said company has not been arrayed as an accused.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Bokaro Steel Plant and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2003 (0) Supreme (Jhk) 1402 and also in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Another dated 28.08.2023, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1211 of 2023 and submits that therein, this court has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court, in the case of Suma Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others in Cr. M.P. No. 741 of 2016 dated 21.06.2017, Para 22, 24 and 27 of which reads as under:

“22. In the case of Krishnan and Another vs. Krishnaveni and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to Section 11 of the I.P.C. has held that the word ‘person’ would, therefore, include not only natural person but also juridical person in whatever form designated and whether incorporated or not. Thus, there are two types of persons – natural person and juridical person, i.e., a legal person. This legal person is a subject matter other than a human being to which the law attributes personality.

24. It is also worthwhile to note the provisions for issuance of summons in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issuance of summons is governed under Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal