Back
Quashes Summons to Hinduja Leyland Officials, Says Post Not
In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards in , the has quashed proceedings against two officials of after finding that the trial court had issued summons to their official designations without naming the individuals holding those posts.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that such a practice constitutes a "" and declared that continuing the criminal process against the petitioners would amount to an .
Summons to a Post: A
The case arose from a complaint filed by one Wakil Singh alleging that on
, staff of
, including Sanjay Singh and Branch Manager Vikash Kumar, had assaulted the driver of a financed vehicle, snatched ₹50,000, and seized the coal-laden 12-wheeler. Based on the complaint and inquiry statements, the
, on
, found a
under IPC Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 379 (theft), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation), and issued summons against the company (petitioner no.1), the
"Director,
"
(petitioner no.2), and the
"Branch Manager,
"
(petitioner no.3) — without specifying the names of the individuals occupying those posts at the relevant time.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under , seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and the .
The Principle: A Post is Not a
The High Court zeroed in on the fundamental legal flaw in the summons. Relying on its earlier coordinate bench decision in , the court observed that summons cannot be directed to a post because a post is not a capable of being tried or held liable.
The court quoted the settled principle from Suma Devi :
"It is a that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued to a post without mentioning the name of the person who is holding the post."
Applying this logic, Justice Choudhary found that the magistrate had committed a "" by issuing summons to the Director and Branch Manager merely by their designations, without naming the individuals.
Precedents in Support
The petitioners also relied on the 's judgment in Sanjay Dutt and Others vs. State of Haryana (2025 SCC Online SC 32), which held that in criminal law requires a specific statutory provision — a principle absent in the . Additionally, the court referred to Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. (2015) 4 SCC 609, where the clarified that for an individual to be made an accused on behalf of a company, there must be sufficient evidence of his active role and criminal intent, or the statute must incorporate . Since the complaint did not allege any personal involvement by the unnamed Director or Branch Manager, the High Court found that the proceedings against them could not stand.
Court's Ruling: Partial Quashing
While the High Court refused to quash the proceedings against petitioner no.1 (M/S ) — leaving the company to face trial — it allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition in respect of petitioners no.2 and 3 (the Director and Branch Manager). The court held:
"Continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner no. 2 and 3 will amount to ."
Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding, including the and the dated , was quashed and set aside insofar as it pertained to the two officials.
Implications
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for trial courts to ensure that summons in criminal cases are addressed to identifiable individuals, not to abstract designations. It reinforces the principle that a "post" holds no personal liability; only the person occupying it can be held accountable, and that too only on the basis of specific allegations of active involvement or under a statute providing for .
The decision underscores the High Court's commitment to preventing abuse of process and ensuring that criminal proceedings respect fundamental legal principles from their inception.
