IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ------

Ayush Agrawal @ Ayush Agarwal aged about 35 years, son of Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, resident of Villa No.32 Baniyan Tree Enclave, Kachana Road, Shankar Nagar, P.O. Shanker Nagar, P.S.-

Khamardih, District-Raipur, Chhatisgarh.

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.

------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:-

I.A. No. 14555 of 2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Cr.M.P. No.2304 of 2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the offence report being Complaint (C.F.) Case No.320 of 2025 alleging commission of the offences under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of the PRA India Private Limited and offence report has been submitted by the Forest Range Officer to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar alleging that under the NH-75 (New NH-39) four lane road construction project, a culvert has been constructed as part of widening of the road by PRA India Private Limited. On the basis of the said offence report, the case has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by drawing attention of this Court to the page-12 of the supplementary affidavit dated 26.08.2025 which is the certificate of incorporation of PRA India Private Limited issued by the Registrar of Companies, Chattisgarh, that at page-12 it has categorically been mentioned that there are only four directors of the said company and the petitioner is one of the directors of the said company and not the proprietor of the said company, as alleged in the offence report.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Prakash Chandra vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 3565, next submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806 and held that in the absence of specific allegation against a person, who is the director of the company, of breaking of or cleaning of any land and in the absence of any specific date of encroachment and construction made in forest land being mentioned in the offence report and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused person of that case, as also in absence of any provision of vicarious law in the Indian Forest Act, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the accused person in that case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt and Others vs. State Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:-

“11. It appears that the Courts below proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the three appellants herein being responsible officers of the company are liable for the alleged offence. While a company may be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its directors is not automatic. It depends on specific circumstances, particularly the interplay between the director's personal actions and the company's responsibilities. A director may be vicariously liable only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such director personally acted in