Jharkhand High Court
Sachida Nand Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:33210]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.927 of 2022
------
Sachida Nand Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Bengali
Prasad, Director, Elite Hospital Limited, R/o Flat No. 201,
Madhushudan Shri Krishnapur, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur, P.O.-
Mango, P.S.- Mango (Ulidih), Dist.- East Singhbhum PIN -
831018.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Narendra Kumar
Gupta, R/o Shri Krishna Bhawan, Anand Vihar Colony,
Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Dist. - East
Singhbhum, PIN- 831018
... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No.1487 of 2022
------
1. Suresh Prasad, aged about 52 years, son of Shri Bengali
Prasad, Director, Elite Hospital Limited, R/o Flat No. 201,
Madhushudan Shri Krishnapur, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur,
P.O.- Mango, P.S.- Mango (Ulidih), Dist.- East Singhbhum
PIN - 831018.
2. Vijay Prasad, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Bengali Prasad,
Director, Elite Hospital Limited, R/o Flat No. 202,
Madhushudan Shri Krishnapur, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur,
P.O.- Mango, P.S.- Mango (Ulidih), Dist.- East Singhbhum
PIN - 831018.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Narendra Kumar
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
Gupta, R/o Shri Krishna Bhawan, Anand Vihar Colony,
Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Dist. - East
Singhbhum, PIN- 831018
... Opposite Parties
With
------
Sanjay Prasad, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Bengali Prasad,
Director, Elite Hospital Limited, R/o Flat No. 208,
Madhushudan Shri Krishnapur, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur, P.O.-
Mango, P.S.- Mango (Ulidih), Dist.- East Singhbhum PIN -
831018.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Narendra Kumar
Gupta, R/o Shri Krishna Bhawan, Anand Vihar Colony,
Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Dist. - East
Singhbhum, PIN- 831018
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III
Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2. : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
2. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure with the common prayer to quash the FIR
being Mango (Ulidih) P.S. case No.202 of 2019 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet
been submitted in this case.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in
criminal conspiracy with each other, deceived the informant by
suppressing the material facts that the different floors of the Elite
Hospital Limited, of which the petitioners of all these three Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions claimed themselves to be the Directors, have
been mortgaged with different Banks and huge amount of loan has
been taken by the Elite Hospital Limited from Banks and induced the
informant and his associate - Gyanchand Jaiswal to pay huge amount
of money to the account of the Elite Hospital Limited and also to
invest huge amount of money in renovation of the said hospital, by
promising them to give the said hospital on lease for a period of 18
years and also induced the informant and Gyanchand Jaiswal to be
the Director of the said hospital in the name and style of 'Elite
Hospital Limited' but later on, the informant and Gyanchand Jaiswal
came to know about the deception and inducement made by
petitioners for making them deliver huge amounts of money and to
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
do renovation work; which they would not have done, had they not
been so deceived and ultimately did not return the money invested by
the petitioners. There is also direct and specific allegation against the
petitioners of all these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions of
playing deception since the beginning of the transactions between the
parties. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,
police registered Mango (Ulidih) P.S. case No.202 of 2019 and took up
investigation of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations
against the petitioners of all three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
are false. It is next submitted that the informant came to the hospital
and introduced himself as a practicing doctor of Brahmanand
Multispecialty Hospital having a team of doctors and patients and
offered to revive the hospital. The informant approached Gyanchand
Jaiswal for the purpose of investing in the company/hospital and also
undertook to pay quarterly instalment to the bank. During the period
of May, 2016 to October, 2016, the informant kept the entire money
received from the patients and spent only a meagre amount towards
purchase of medicines and equipment but the informant did not pay
the quarterly instalment against bank's loan. It is further submitted
that without any rhyme or reason vide his letter dated 29.12.2016, the
informant tendered his resignation from the Office of Director, Elite
Hospital Limited. It is also submitted that at best, it is a case of the
settlement of accounts and a dispute of civil nature.
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
6. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special
Economic Zone Ltd. & Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 806, the
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in para-24 of the said judgement relied upon its own
judgment in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609, para-43 and 44 of which
read as under:-
"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 [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels
& Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ)
350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241] , 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."
and submits that here the company is the offender, hence,
vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically.
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in these three
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions be allowed.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the State of all these three
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and the learned senior counsel for
the opposite party No.2 appearing in all these three Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioners made in these Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions and submit that in para-43 of the judgment in the case of
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), it
has categorically been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
that an individual who has perpetrated the commission of 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
the criminal intent. It is next submitted that here the company has not
committed any offence rather it is the petitioners who in their
individual capacity have deceived and thereby dishonestly induced
the informant and Gyanchand Jaiswal both to pay money to the Elite
Hospital Limited and also induced the informant and Gyanchand
Jaiswal so deceived by the petitioners themselves in their individual
capacity, to invest the huge amount of money in the said hospital,
which they ought not have done unless they were so deceived by the
petitioners and had they been knowing the fact that the different
floors of the Elite Hospital Limited, have been mortgaged to the
different banks to obtain huge amount of loans by the Elite Hospital
Limited, which material facts although were known to the petitioners,
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
was suppressed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
loans incurred by the said hospital by mortgaging the different floors
of the said hospital, were no doubt the material facts but for the
purpose of playing deception since the beginning, the said material
fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioners of these three
criminal miscellaneous petitions, who claim to be the Directors of
Elite Hospital Limited. It is also submitted that it is the contention of
the petitioners that the informant went to Elite Hospital Limited and
voluntarily approached them, but the same is at best a defence of the
petitioners, as it is the specific case of the informant, as has been
categorically made in the FIR that, it is petitioners who themselves
came to the informant and approached him with the offer of handing
over the Elite Hospital Limited to be run and managed by the
informant, upon suppressing the material facts, that the different
floors of the said hospital have been mortgaged with the different
banks for obtaining loans. Hence, it is submitted that these Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mere mention here that the essential ingredients to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code are as follows:-
(a) Deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation;
and
(b) Inducing the person deceived to part with property;
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners of these three
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, in criminal conspiracy with each
other played deception since the beginning of the transaction between
the informant and Gyanchand Jaiswal, on one hand and Elite Hospital
Limited represented by the petitioners of these Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions in the capacity of Director on the other hand.
The petitioners of these three criminal miscellaneous petitions have
deceived and thereby induced the informant and Gyanchand Jaiswal
to part with huge amount of money by paying the same to Elite
Hospital Limited and also investing huge amount of money in the
renovation of Elite Hospital Limited, by deceiving them by
suppressing the material facts that different floors of the Elite
Hospital Limited have been mortgaged to the different Banks by the
said Elite Hospital Limited of which the petitioners were Directors
and they were knowing all these facts of mortgage of different floors
of the said hospital to the different banks.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the
FIR are considered to be true, there is direct and specific allegations
against the petitioners of deceiving the informant and inducing him
to deliver money to Elite Hospital Limited and also to invest huge
amount of money with Elite Hospital Limited which could not have
with
other allied cases
[2025:JHHC:33210]
been done, had the informant and Gyanchand Jaiswal were not so
deceived. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
entire materials available in the records are sufficient to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence, this is not a fit case where the prayer of all the petitioners of
these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, as is made in these
criminal miscellaneous petitions, is to be acceded to in exercise of the
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Accordingly, all these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions,
being without any merit, are dismissed.
12. In view of disposal of all these Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions, the interim relief, if any, granted earlier in respective
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions is vacated.
13. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned
forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of November, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 07/11/2025
with
other allied cases
