By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance and the summoning order dated 05.08.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case no. 787 of 2016 by which, learned JMFC, XXVII, Ranchi found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323, 379, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioners.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 21.09.2013, the complainant got 12 wheeler vehicle financed from the petitioner no. 1 and on 02.03.2015, the said vehicle was seized with the coal loaded in the vehicle. Sanjay Singh- the staff and Vikash Kumar- Branch Manager, stopped the vehicle, did marpit with the driver, snatched away Rs. 50,000/- from him and also snatched away the vehicle. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned JMFC, Ranchi found the prima facie case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying 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, submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suma Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2016, paragraph no.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.”

Wherein the coordiante Bench of 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 juristic person.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 32 submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that whenever by a legal fiction, the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned. It is next submitted that the petitioners are not involved personally in the commission of the alleged offence and in the absence of any provision of vicarious liability in the IPC, learned Magistrate has committed grave illegality in passing the summoning order against the petitioner.

6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Ruchika Kakar through his Power of Attorney holder Devadatta Parshuram Dalvi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online Jhar 1769 that therein, in para 7, 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. & Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 430, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Click Here to Read the rest of this document