Jharkhand High Court
Punit Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013
Punit Gupta ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Budhan Ram ..... ... Opposite Parties
with
Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013
1. Hemant Goyal
2. Punit Gupta ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Budhan Ram ..... ... Opposite Parties
with
Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013
1. Hemant Goyal
2. Punit Gupta ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Budhan Ram ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate.
: Ms Sidhi Jalan, Advocate.
: Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
------
05/ 11.08.2023 Heard Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in all the cases and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey
and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.Ps. in respective cases for the State.
2. In all these three petitions, common questions of fact and law
are involved that's why all these Cr.M.Ps. are being heard together with
the consent of the parties.
3. In Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013, the challenge is made for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G.O. Case
No. 12 of 2013 registered on 12.01.2013 by the Forest Area Officer,
Chandil, for the alleged offence under Sections 33, 63 and 52 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Seraikella.
4. In Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing
of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G.O. Case No. 214
of 2012 lodged on 13.12.2012 by the Forest Area Officer, Chandil, for the
alleged offence under Sections 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.
5. In Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing
of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chandil Chowka P.S.
Case No. 05 of 2013 lodged on 11.01.2013 by the Area Forest Officer,
corresponding to G.R. No. 44 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 447,
419, 420, 201, 120-B, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33,
42 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Forest
Conservation Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Seraikella.
6. It appears that the allegations made in two G.Os. Cases, which
are the subject matters in Cr.M.P. Nos. 161 of 2013 and 158 of 2013
respectively, was the basis of registering the FIR, which is the subject
matter in Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013. As such, the prosecution case in a
nutshell is as follows:-
7. The First Information Report was lodged on 10.01.2013 on
the basis of the offence report submitted by one Sunil Kumar Das, Forest
Guard, vide Letter No.170 dated 10.01.2013, wherein it was mentioned
that the Forest Guard along with another Officer of the Forest Department
while carrying out patrolling in the Protected Forest, it was found that the
Petitioner no. 2 G.M. of M/s. Narsingh Ispat Limited, Khunti Chowka with
two other staff members of the company along with various labours were
removing concrete slab from the Musribera Protected Forest with an intent
to remove the encroachment and when asked it was informed that since
the area falls within forest land, the concrete slab was being removed.
However, the slabs were not allowed to seize in terms of a telephonic call
received from the Proprietor of the Company.
It was further sought to be alleged that some fresh cut bushes
were kept aside and the same has been seized.
On 11.01.2013 slab has been seized. the aforesaid Act is an
offence under Section 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
8. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013 is the General
Manager of M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited. He further submits that in Cr.M.P.
No. 158 of 2013 the petitioner No. 1 is the Director and petitioner No. 2 is
General Manager of the said company. He also submits that in Cr.M.P. No.
159 of 2013, the petitioners are the Director and General Manager
respectively of the said company.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
company namely M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited purchased a piece of land
situated at Mauza Musribera, P.S. Chandil, Thana No. 176, Halka No. 9,
Khata No. 169 Plot No. 1211 by the registered sale deed from M/s
B.R.G.D. Sponge Iron and Pvt. Limited and also from Sri Shyam Sundar
Agarwal. He submits that all the sale deeds have been annexed as
Annexure-2 series in all these cases. He further submits that the said
pieces of land are duly mutated in the name of respective sellers and rent
receipts have also been issued in their names. He further submits that the
land in question was being utilized by the erstwhile owners of the land and
before the purchase by the company of the petitioners, as the second
purchaser, the original raiyats were exercising their respective right, title
and possession over the land in question. He submits that the subject
matter of all the complaints is plot No. 1211, which was purchased by the
petitioners and all the activities were being done in that plot. He submits
that for purchase of land, the agreement was entered into in March, 2012
and it was purchased vide registered sale deeds in May, 2012 and cause of
action arose in the month of November, 2012 in all these cases.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that if
the forest land is the subject matter, the complaint can only be registered
under Rule-9 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 and only the
authorized person by the Central Government and the Conservator of
Forest or the concerned Forest Officer, duly notified can lodge the said
complaint. He submits that in the case in hand, without complying the said
Rule, the complaint case has been registered against the petitioners. He
further submits that the company is not made an accused. He further
submits that Mr. Punit Gupta, who is the General Manager has signed the
registered document on behalf of the company. He further submits that the
allegations are that the Director was residing at Kolkata and Punit Gupta
had made a telephonic call to him and that's why, he has been made an
accused in the case. He further submits that the vicarious liability cannot
be fastened upon the Managing Director and to buttress his argument, he
relied in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe Versus Mangalore Special
Economic Zone Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 806.
Relying on this judgment, he submits that the earlier judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal was again considered in
para-24 of the judgment, which is held as under:-
"24. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), it
is observed by this Court in paragraphs 42 to 44
as under:
"(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in
charge of the affairs of the company can also be
prosecuted, when the company is an accused
person
42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial
person which acts through its officers, Directors,
Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a
company commits an offence involving mens rea,
it would normally be the intent and action of that
individual who would act on behalf of the
company. It would be more so, when the criminal
act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same
time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability
unless the statute specifically provides so.
43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the
commission of an offence on behalf of a company
can be made an accused, along with the company,
if there is sufficient evidence of his active role
coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in
which he can be implicated is in those cases
where the statutory regime itself attracts the
doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically
incorporating such a provision.
44. When the company is the offender, vicarious
liability of the Directors cannot be imputed
automatically, in the absence of any statutory
provision to this effect. One such example
is Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. In Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels &
Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, the Court
noted that if a group of persons that guide the
business of the company have the criminal intent,
that would be imputed to the body corporate and
it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act has to be understood.
Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory
intendment making it a deeming fiction. Here
also, the principle of "alter ego", was applied
only in one direction, namely, where a group of
persons that guide the business had criminal
intent, that is to be imputed to the body corporate
and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has to be
a specific act attributed to the Director or any
other person allegedly in control and
management of the company, to the effect that
such a person was responsible for the acts
committed by or on behalf of the company."
11. He further submits that in a recent judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the High Court while deciding a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is required to act with circumspection and the duty is also posed
upon the court to look into the FIR carefully as well as the disputes of the
interline. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Haji Iqbal @
Bala through S.P.O.A. versus State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2023)
SCC Online SC 946, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras-15 and
16 held as follows:-
15. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a
little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with
all the necessary pleadings. The complainant
would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the
case over and above the averments and, if need
be, with due care and circumspection try to read
in between the lines. The Court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as
well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period
of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue
of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge as alleged.
16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga
Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court elaborated on the types of materials the
High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The
Court drew a fine distinction between
consideration of materials that were tendered as
evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only
such material that manifestly fails to prove the
accusation in the FIR can be considered for
quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
"5. Authority of the court exists for advancement
of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be an
abuse of the process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers
court would be justified to quash any proceeding
if it finds that initiation or continuance of it
amounts to abuse of the process of court or
quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint
is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look
into the materials to assess what the
complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC
866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised
some categories of cases where inherent power
can and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a
legal bar against the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the
offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal evidence
or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a
case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations.
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether
on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained.
That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process, no doubt should not be an instrument of
oppression, or, needless harassment. Court
should be circumspect and judicious in exercising
discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash
vendetta to harass any person needlessly.
At the same time the section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death...."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Cr.M.P. No. 159 of
2013, it has been admitted that the title of the petitioners are not in
dispute. On these backgrounds, he submits that the entire proceeding is
malicious proceeding and to allow to continue, will amount to an abuse of
the process of law.
13. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State in
Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013 submits that the State has filed the counter
affidavit, where in para-15, it has been disclosed that the case of the
petitioners does not fall within the category laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal
and others" reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. He further submits that
the case is made out and rightly the case has been registered, as such, the
case against the petitioners is not fit to be quashed.
14. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State in
Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013 submits that the petitioners have cut the trees of
the forest department and the case has rightly been registered against the
petitioner. He refers to paras-9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State in that case.
15. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
in Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013 has adopted the arguments of Mr. S.K.
Srivastava and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.Ps.
16. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials
available on record including the contents of two G.Os. cases as well the
FIR, from which, it transpires that the FIR has been registered, which is
the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013, pursuant to two G.Os.
cases, which are the subject matters in Cr.M.P. Nos. 161 and 158 of 2013
respectively. The documents annexed with these petitions, which are the
registered sale deeds suggests that M/s Narshing Ispat Limited has
purchased total 21 acres (approximately) of land for the purpose of use of
the company. The plot number is 1211 and the mutations have also been
done in favour of the company.
17. In the counter affidavit, filed in Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013, in
para-14, it has been admitted that the title of the petitioner is not in
dispute, rather the case has been lodged for his illegal act. The counter
affidavit filed in Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013, the map is annexed as page-20
and plot Nos. 1211 and 1210 have been shown not to be protected forest
land and only plot No. 1212 has been shown as protected forest land.
18. In view of the above, it transpires that the petitioners have
purchased the lands and further Punit Gupta and Hemant Goyal have
acted on behalf of the company, being the signatory of the company and
being the purchaser of the land and the company is not made an accused in
the case. If any act is done by the company, the company is a necessary
accused, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ravindranatha Bajpe (Supra). Further for quashing of the FIR, the court
is required to act in circumspection, as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal
and others" reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, on which, much
reliance has been placed by one of the learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State and it is further well settled that if a petition is being decided by the
court, the court is required to look into the entire facts between the lines,
as been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @
Bala through S.P.O.A. (Supra).
19. Further the argument of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners further fortifies in view of Rule-9 of the Forest Conservation
Rules, 2003, which speaks as under:-
"9. Proceedings against persons guilty of
offences under the Act.--
(1) The Central Government may, by notification,
authorise any officer not below the rank of
Conservator of Forests or the concerned forest
officer having territorial jurisdiction over the
forest land in respect of which the said offence is
said to have been committed, to file complaints
against the person (s) prima facie found guilty of
offence under the Act or the violation of the rules
made thereunder, in the court having jurisdiction
in the matter: Provided that no complaint shall be
filed in the court, without giving the person(s) or
officer(s) or authority(ies) against whom the
allegations of offence exist, an opportunity to
explain his or their conduct and to show cause, by
issuing a notice in writing of not less than sixty
days, as to why a complaint should not be filed in
the court against him or them for alleged
offences.
(2) The officer authorised by the Central
Government in sub-rule (1) may require any State
Government or its officer or any person or any
other authority to furnish to it within a specified
period any reports, documents, statistics and any
other information related to contravention of the
Act or the rules made thereunder, considered
necessary for making a complaint in any court of
jurisdiction and every such State government or
officer or person or authority shall be bound to
do so."
20. Looking into the aforesaid Rule, it appears that the procedure
prescribed in that Rule has not been followed and further the petitioners
have not been show caused before registering the FIR. The mutation order,
registered sale deeds, the counter affidavits of the State, Map annexed with
one of the counter affidavit, are the documents, which suggests that the
plot Nos. 1211 and 1210 are not the protected forest land, however, the
plot No. 1212 is only the protected forest land. As such, the case of the
petitioners are fully covered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme court in the cases of Ravindranatha Bajpe (Supra) and Haji
Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A. (Supra).
21. Accordingly, in Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013, the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with G.O. Case No. 12 of 2013 registered on
12.01.2013 by the Forest Area Officer, Chandil, for the alleged offence
under Sections 33, 63 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, are hereby, quashed.
22. In Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013 also, the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with G.O. Case No. 214 of 2012 lodged on
13.12.2012 by the Forest Area Officer, Chandil, for the alleged offence
under Sections 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, are hereby, quashed.
23. In Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013 also, the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with Chandil Chowka P.S. Case No. 05 of 2013
lodged on 11.01.2013 by the Area Forest Officer, corresponding to G.R.
No. 44 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 447, 419, 420, 201, 120-B,
427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33, 42 and 63 of the Indian
Forest Act and Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Forest Conservation Act,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, are
hereby, quashed.
24. All the three criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
