The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or posts as a post is not a juridical person. Therefore, taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the present petition under Section 482 crpc is filed in order to quash the proceedings and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, where 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 offenses and summons was issued citing DGM, Sail, M/s- RMD Gua Ore Mines as the main accused in the prosecution report.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the 14 D.G.M. are posted in Gua Ore Mines and there exists no legal entity in the name and style of M/s R.M.D. Gua Ore Mines and after the dissolution of the raw material division, Gua Ore Mines is functioning under the Administrative Control of Bokoro Steel Plant, SAIL. Furthermore, it was submitted that the learned court below took cognizance against the non-existent post and the same is sustainable in law. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Contentions of the state
The State submitted that the motor vehicle inspector was not able to ascertain the name of the post holder r 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.).
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that since a post is not a juridical person, a summons in a criminal case cannot be issued against positions or posts to face trial. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has committed illegality by summoning DGM Sail of M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines, especially since there is no doubt that such a post does not even exist. Therefore, it is unsustainable from a legal standpoint to take cognizance without naming the individual(s) accountable for the alleged criminal act.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines will amount to an abuse of process of law and the court quashed the criminal proceedings.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Title: M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (R.M.D.) V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2956 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
