Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on employees without specific allegations against them, and a Magistrate must ensure a prima facie case exists before summoning individuals.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in the respective cases.

2. All these writ petitions are arising out of the same First Information Report (FIR) and the order taking cognizance, and that is why, all these writ petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.

3. In all these petitions the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No.11 of 2014 dated 09.01.2014, corresponding to G.R. No.44 of 2014, registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 466, 474, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 82(D) of Registration Act including the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma whereby the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance.

4. The F.I.R was registered on the basis of the written statement of informant namely Jitendra Kumar Deo, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma, stating therein that on 12.08.2013 sanction for the Registration of Sale of the land appertaining to Khata No.01., Plot Nos.11,12,13, 14, 15, 16, and 19 total area 427 acres situated at Village Taral, within Domchanch Anchal (Thana No.10) has been given by Sri Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar, Sub Registrar, Registry Office, Koderma, vide Eleven Sale Deeds bearing Nos.4237, 4238, 4239, 4240, 4241, 4242, 4243, 4244, 4245, 4246 and 4247 all dated 12.8.2013.

It is alleged that in the FIR there is no plot over and above plot no.10 at Village Terai with Domchanch Prakhand (Thana No.10) and therefore, plot nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 are baseless and imaginary lands of the aforesaid plots and therefore the registration is false and forged. It is further alleged in the FIR that identity card given by all the vendors are fake and the documents have been prepared with the help of forged identity card. It is further alleged in the FIR that false identification cards have been submitted by the identifiers of the sellers of the land and therefore all of them are guilty for impersonation. The affidavits filed by the purchaser, namely, the representative of Sri Rajeev David, Tata Steel Ltd. Company and the sellers are false and fabricated. It is alleged that the circumstances stated above, in connivance with all the staff of the Registry Office, all the persons involved in connection with the execution of the alleged registered Sale Deed, vendors and vendees, identifiers and witnesses whose names are mentioned in the written report, the aforesaid registration have been completed.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that earlier the petitioners have moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014. All these Cr.M.Ps. were decided along with other Cr.M.Ps also by judgment dated 12.9.2023 wherein on elaborate discussion this Court has quashed the order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2021 and remanded the matter to the learned court to pass fresh order. He submits that pursuant to that the learned court has again passed fresh order dated 28.06.2024 and it has again taken cognizance and no fresh reasons have been given in the order taking cognizance. He further submits that so far the petitioner namely Jagdish Prasad Das in W.P.(Cr.) No.689 of 2024 is concerned, he has only signed the sale-deed as representative of Tata Steel Limited. He submits that the petitioner Rajeev David @ Rajiv Darvid in W.P. (Cr.) No. 831 of 2024, he has identified Jagdish Prasad as representative of Tata Steel Limited. He submits that so far as the petitioner namely Madan Gopal Singh in W.P.(Cr.) No.673 of 2024 is concerned, he was not sent up for trial by the police and inspite of that the learned court has taken cognizance against him. He submits that this fact was there