The court affirmed that without personal wrongdoing or clear involvement in company actions post-resignation, criminal liability cannot be established, and proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No.76 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) & 308(3) of the BNS, 2023.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant entered into an agreement with the company in the name and style of K Sera Sera Box Office Pvt. Ltd. on 17.08.2023 represented by its authorized signatory for purchasing articles from the said company for running a cinema hall. The petitioner transferred Rs.28,30,000/- to the account of the said company and it was assured that the said company will provide a license for starting the cinema hall but the articles as per list was not supplied by the company of the petitioner and the company did not return the money rather threatened the informant of dire consequences, if he demands back the money.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, the police registered Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No.76 of 2026 and took up investigation of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane reported in(2015) 12 SCC 781 and submits that wherein para-11, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that principally if the allegations are against the company, when there is no allegation against the Managing Director, when the company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. It is next submitted that in this case, the BNS does not have any provision for any vicarious liability and there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner did any act of omission or commission on behalf of the said company, therefore the criminal proceeding ought not proceed against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 which is Form No.DIR-12 submits that the same goes to show that the petitioner has resigned from the company with effect from 08.07.2023 and the e-form filing date intimating the resignation is 21.07.2023 and as admittedly the agreement has been entered into by the informant much thereafter on 17.08.2023, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be held responsible for the acts of the company if any; which was took place after resignation of the petitioner from the company concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofUsha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal & Another reported in(2023) 15 SCC 135, and submit that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that when the dispute between the parties is basically a dispute of civil nature and the informant has already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit which is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceeding, as a weapon of harassment and quashed the same.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofRukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Sata