Jharkhand High Court
Ayush Agrawal @ Ayush Agarwal Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 4 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:33042)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2304 of 2025
------
Ayush Agrawal @ Ayush Agarwal aged about 35 years, son of
Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, resident of Villa No.32 Baniyan Tree
Enclave, Kachana Road, Shankar Nagar, P.O. Shanker Nagar, P.S.-
Khamardih, District-Raipur, Chhatisgarh.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early
hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.
3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up
today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
1. Heard the parties.
(2025:JHHC:33042)
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the
offence report being Complaint (C.F.) Case No.320 of 2025 alleging
commission of the offences under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of the
PRA India Private Limited and offence report has been submitted by the
Forest Range Officer to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar
alleging that under the NH-75 (New NH-39) four lane road construction
project, a culvert has been constructed as part of widening of the road by
PRA India Private Limited. On the basis of the said offence report, the
case has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by drawing attention of
this Court to the page-12 of the supplementary affidavit dated 26.08.2025
which is the certificate of incorporation of PRA India Private Limited
issued by the Registrar of Companies, Chattisgarh, that at page-12 it has
categorically been mentioned that there are only four directors of the said
company and the petitioner is one of the directors of the said company
and not the proprietor of the said company, as alleged in the offence
report.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgement of
this Court in the case of Prakash Chandra vs. The State of Jharkhand
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 3565, next submits that in that case,
this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special
(2025:JHHC:33042)
Economic Zone Ltd. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806 and held that
in the absence of specific allegation against a person, who is the director
of the company, of breaking of or cleaning of any land and in the absence
of any specific date of encroachment and construction made in forest land
being mentioned in the offence report and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused person of that case, as also in absence of any
provision of vicarious law in the Indian Forest Act, this Court quashed the
entire criminal proceeding against the accused person in that case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relies upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt and Others vs.
State Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32,
paragraph-11 of which reads as under:-
"11. It appears that the Courts below proceeded on the
erroneous assumption that the three appellants herein being
responsible officers of the company are liable for the alleged
offence. While a company may be held liable for the wrongful
acts of its employees, the liability of its directors is not
automatic. It depends on specific circumstances, particularly
the interplay between the director's personal actions and the
company's responsibilities. A director may be vicariously liable
only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such
director personally acted in a manner that directly connects
their conduct to the company's liability. Mere authorization of
an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a
supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the
company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable.
There must exist something to show that such actions of the
director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose
from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine
corporate duties. Thus, where the company is the offender,
vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed
automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this
effect. 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. (Emphasis
supplied)
(2025:JHHC:33042)
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in
no uncertain manner held that while a company may be held liable for a
wrongful act of its employees, the liability of the directors is not
automatic and it depends upon specific circumstances particularly the
interplay between the director's personal actions and the company's
responsibilities.
7. It is next submitted that in para-13 of the said judgment which
reads as under:-
13. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically
provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the
commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made
an accused, if the statute provides for such liability and if there
is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal
intent. The primary responsibility is on the complainant to
make specific averments as are required under the law in the
complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For
fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is
no presumption that every officer of a company knows about
the transaction in question." (Emphasis supplied)
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that there cannot be a vicarious liability unless the statute
specifically provides for the same, hence, it is submitted that the prayer,
as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
8. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State fairly submits that the
allegation made in the offence report that the petitioner is the proprietor
of the PRA India Private Limited is incorrect, in fact, he is the director of
PRA India Private Limited, but it is submitted that the petitioner is
squarely responsible for the acts committed by the said company in the
(2025:JHHC:33042)
name and style of PRA India Private Limited. Therefore, it is submitted
that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt
and Others vs. State Haryana and Another (Supra), that the liability of a
director of a company for wrongful acts, if any, committed by the
employees of the company is not automatic.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner of himself having in any way indulged in
construction of the culvert, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused
on the erroneous assumption that he is the proprietor of PRA India
Private Limited, which even the learned Spl. P.P. admitted to be incorrect.
There is no specific allegation upon the petitioner of breaking up or
cleaning the land in the protected forest area, thus, in the absence of any
specific role of the petitioner and in the absence of any provision of
vicarious liability in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, this Court is of the
considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against
the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case
where the entire criminal proceeding including the offence report being
Complaint (C.F.) Case No.320 of 2025, be quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner.
(2025:JHHC:33042)
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the offence
report being Complaint (C.F.) Case No.320 of 2025, is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner only.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 4th November, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 06/11/2025
