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. {Para 6}
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:-
“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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment