MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or posts as a post is not a juridical person

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 2956 of 2022

M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited VsThe State of Jharkhand

P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.243 of 2020 including the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa whereby and where under, the learned court found sufficient materials on record to find prima facie case under Sections 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187 and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and under Section 22 and 28 (i) of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001 and taken cognizance for the said offences and summons was issued citing DGM, Sail, M/s- RMD Gua Ore Mines as the main accused in the prosecution report.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition has been filed on behalf of M/s. Steel Authority of India (R.M.D.), D.G.M. (M.M.), Gua Ore Mines through its Deputy General Manager (D.G.M.). Drawing attention of this Court to supplementary affidavit dated 18.12.2023, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that altogether 14 D.G.M. are posted in Gua Ore Mines, the details of which have been mentioned in the separate sheet but inadvertently the name and designation of D.G.M. at serial no.1 has not been mentioned. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal entity in existence in the name and style of M/s R.M.D. Gua Ore Mines and after dissolution of raw material division, Gua Ore Mines is functioning under the Administrative Control of Bokoro Steel Plant, SAIL. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order taking cognizance dated 23.12.2020 has been passed in most mechanical manner against a non-existent post. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the owner of the vehicle in question is M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited hence, D.G.M. Sail, R.M.D., Gua Ore Mines being a non-existent post only harassment will be caused to the officers of the Steel Authority of India posted at Gua Ore Mines, by continuation of the criminal proceeding arising out of the complaint. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance has been taken on vague allegations without any specific overt act committed by anybody. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the cognizance has been taken against a post, the same is not sustainable in law and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1211 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023, paragraph no. 7 of which reads as under:-

See also  SC : To what extent the Court can permit Advocate of the victim to assist the public prosecutor in Session trial.

“Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that by now it is a settled
principle of law that summons in a criminal case to face
trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is
not juridical person. Hence, the learned Magistrate has
committed illegality by issuing summons against the
“Bank Manager of IDBI Bank, Sector 4, Bokaro” by not
naming the person who was responsible for the said
criminal act of being instrumental in opening a forged
account of the son of the complainant.”

4. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.243 of 2020 including the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa be quashed.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor do not dispute the fact that there are 14 number of D.G.M. posted in Gua Ore Mines, the details of which is provided in separate sheet of supplementary affidavit and also do not dispute the fact that no legal entity is in existent under the name and style of M/s. R.M.D. Gua Ore Mines but submits that as the motor vehicle inspector could not ascertain the name of the post holder at the relevant time under whose control the offending dumper was running hence, he could not cite the name of the post holder of D.G.M. (M.M.). Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

See also  Whether an act would amount to an offence if general exceptions under IPC cover it?

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand Anr. (supra) that summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has committed illegality by issuing summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist. Thus, taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.243 of 2020 including the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa be quashed and set aside.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.243 of 2020 including the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa is quashed and set aside.

9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd April, 2024

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  FIR U/S 498A RPC Quash - Extreme Injustice to Parties if Criminal Proceedings continues despite settlement
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation