A criminal summons cannot be issued against a designation or post, as such an entity is not a juridical person. Furthermore, vicarious liability is inapplicable to criminal offences under the prevailing penal framework in the absence of explicit statutory provision.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Cr.M.P. No.3717 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 the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance and order issuing processes dated 10.04.2017 against the petitioner No.2 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 2471 of 2016, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the co-accused Avas Praharaj and the complainant agreed that Avas Praharaj will arrange Dozer for the complainant at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/-. There was an exchange of e-mails to this effect. The complainant transferred Rs.8,00,000/- to the account of L & T Company but the co-accused person did not hand over the Dozer and the Dozer was not given to the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025 Supreme (Jhk) 988 and submits that this Court in that case, relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suma Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2016, para-27 of which reads as under:-

“27. In the case in hand, Bharat Coking Coal Limited – a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, is not an accused and no allegation has been attributed against the Company. The accused are :- (1) Chief Manager, B.C.C.L., Kusunda Area; (2) Project Officer, B.C.C.L., Godhar Colliery; (3) Deputy Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L.,Godhar Colliery; (4) Chief Office Clerk, B.C.C.L., Godhar Colliery; against whom summons have been ordered to be issued. Since these are the post/designation of the employees of the Company, they are neither a natural or juridical person. Further, the I.P.C. does not attribute any personality to these posts. That being the position, they cannot be summoned to face trial independently. It is pertinent to mention here that the juridical person, i.e., the Company B.C.C.L. is not an accused in the complaint case.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued to a post without mentioning the name of the person who is holding the post; as a post is not a juridical person.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutta & Others vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32 and submits that in para-13 thereof, it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is a cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, only if the statute provides for such liability. It is then submitted that the Indian Penal Code do not contain any provision for vicarious liability, hence, the cognizance taken against the petitioner No.2 is bad in law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitione