[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 27 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2219
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 481 of 2026
27th March, 2026
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd ..........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vasistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Soniya
Chawla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Vikash
Uniyal, learned Brief Holders for the State.
Mr. Jai Krishan Pande, learned counsel for respondent
no.2/complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
Present C-528 application has been filed by
the applicant seeking to quash the impugned judgment
and order dated 14.07.2025 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.108 of 2024, as
well as to set aside the summoning order dated
16.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Criminal Complaint Case No.2999 of 2023, whereby the
applicant has been summoned for the offence
punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C.
2026:UHC:2219
2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would
submit that respondent no.2/complainant filed a
complaint against seven persons including the present
applicant. In the complaint it has been alleged that
accused no.6, approached the complainant and
represented that he would supply cement required for
construction of a newly constructed building. On the
basis of the said representation, the complainant
allegedly purchased 1000 bags of cement of the
applicant company. It is further alleged that on
01.08.2023, the complainant utilized the said cement for
laying the lintel of his building and after completion of
the work some cement bags remained unused.
Subsequently, on 21.08.2023, when the complainant
examined the remaining cement bags, he allegedly
noticed that the manufacturing date mentioned on the
bags was 08.02.2023 or 12.03.2023, whereupon he
presumed that the cement used in the construction had
expired and consequently the strength of the
construction had decreased. He would further submit
that the complainant and his witnesses were examined
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and thereafter the
learned Magistrate issued the summoning order dated
2026:UHC:2219
18.10.2023 against the applicant.
3. Learned senior counsel would further submit
that aggrieved by the summoning order dated
18.10.2023, the applicant initially filed a criminal misc.
application, which was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file a fresh application vide order dated
12.12.2023. Thereafter, the applicant filed C-482
Application No.492 of 2024, which was disposed of by
order dated 22.03.2024, whereby the summoning order
was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the
learned Magistrate for reconsideration. Pursuant
thereto, the learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter
and, being satisfied that no sufficient ground existed to
proceed against the present applicant, dropped the
proceedings against him vide order dated 04.05.2024,
while fixing the next date for appearance of the
remaining accused persons.
4. It is further submitted that being aggrieved by
the said order dated 04.05.2024, respondent no.2
preferred Criminal Revision No.78 of 2024 before the
Sessions Court. The said revision was allowed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur vide the
impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2025,
2026:UHC:2219
whereby the matter was remanded back to the learned
Magistrate for fresh consideration. It is contended that
while allowing the revision, the revisional court did not
record any specific finding against the present applicant
nor did it specify in respect of which accused the matter
was required to be reconsidered.
5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant
further submits that no criminal offence is made out
against the applicant from the allegations made in the
complaint. According to him, the dispute essentially
relates to alleged deficiency in goods supplied. It is
contended that the complainant admittedly utilized the
entire cement for construction of his building and has
not alleged that any part of the building has collapsed or
required demolition due to use of the cement in
question.
6. It is further argued that even if the allegations
are accepted at their face value, the dispute would at
best give rise to a civil liability or a consumer dispute,
but the same cannot be converted into a criminal
prosecution. It is also contended that the essential
ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B
I.P.C., namely a prior meeting of minds and an
2026:UHC:2219
agreement to commit an illegal act, are completely
absent in the present case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 would submit that accused nos.1 to 5
are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement,
while accused nos.6 and 7 are stated to be Technical
Service Engineer and State Technical Service Head of
Dalmia Cement. It is contended that accused no.6
approached the complainant and induced him to
purchase cement of the applicant company, and due to
the use of allegedly expired cement the strength of the
construction has been adversely affected. On the
strength of these allegations it is submitted that the
learned court below has rightly passed the impugned
order.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
submits that the learned Magistrate has passed the
impugned summoning order in a mechanical manner
without due application of judicial mind. It is contended
that, for constituting an offence under Section 120-B
I.P.C., there must be prima facie material showing a
prior meeting of minds and an intention on the part of
the accused to participate in the alleged conspiracy. In
2026:UHC:2219
the present case, no such material has been placed on
record to indicate the involvement or intention of the
applicant; therefore, the order taking cognizance and
summoning the applicant is legally unsustainable.
9. It is further submitted that the principle of
"alter ego" is also relevant in the present case. In
Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Akshay Textiles Trading
and Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High Court held that
the acts and criminal intent of the person who is the
"directing mind and will" of a company (its alter ego)
may, in appropriate cases, be attributed to the company.
However, such attribution arises only when it is first
established that the individual concerned was in fact the
guiding or controlling mind responsible for the
impugned acts. In the present case, there is no material
whatsoever to indicate that the applicant was the
directing or controlling mind behind the alleged acts.
Despite the absence of any such material, the learned
Magistrate has proceeded to summon the applicant,
which clearly reflects non-application of judicial mind
while taking cognizance.
10. He would further submit that it is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no
2026:UHC:2219
vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute
specifically provides for the same. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sanjay Dutt and Another v. State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 7464 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025) reiterated
that "It is the cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless
the statute specifically provides so. An individual who
has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf
of a company can be made an accused only if the statute
provides for such liability and if there is sufficient
evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent.
The primary responsibility lies upon the complainant to
make specific averments in the complaint so as to make
the accused vicariously liable. There is no presumption
that every officer of a company knows about the
transaction in question." In the present case, the
complaint does not contain any specific averment
demonstrating the active role, criminal intent, or
participation of the applicant in the alleged offence. In
the absence of such foundational pleadings and
material, the summoning of the applicant is legally
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
2026:UHC:2219
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
12. From the perusal of the complaint as well as
the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., it appears that the primary allegation against
the accused persons is that cement supplied to the
complainant was allegedly of an earlier manufacturing
date and, therefore, the complainant presumed that the
cement had expired. However, there is no specific
allegation demonstrating that the applicant entered into
any agreement with the other accused persons with the
intention of committing an illegal act or causing
wrongful loss to the complainant.
13. It is well settled that to constitute an offence
under Section 120-B I.P.C., there must be prima facie
material to show the existence of an agreement between
two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to
commit a lawful act by illegal means. In the present
case, neither the complaint nor the statements of
witnesses disclose any material indicating the existence
of such an agreement involving the present applicant.
2026:UHC:2219
Furthermore, the allegations made in the complaint
essentially relate to the quality of cement supplied to the
complainant. Such allegations, even if accepted, would
primarily fall within the domain of civil or consumer
dispute regarding deficiency in goods, and cannot by
themselves give rise to criminal liability in the absence
of any material indicating fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction.
14. The learned revisional court, while setting
aside the order dated 04.05.2024, has remanded the
matter for fresh consideration without recording any
specific finding regarding the role of the present
applicant. The impugned order does not disclose any
reasoning demonstrating that the learned Magistrate
had committed any illegality or perversity while dropping
the proceedings against the applicant.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned judgment and order dated
14.07.2025 passed by the learned revisional court
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order
dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional
2026:UHC:2219
Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
in Criminal Revision No.108 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the summoning order dated 16.09.2025
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Complaint Case No.2999 of 2023 is also set aside.
17. The matter is remanded back to the court
concerned. The learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar shall
pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing
the parties and after independently considering the
material available on record, without being influenced
by any observation made in the present order.
18. Accordingly, the C-528 application stands
disposed of.
19. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
MAMTA
(ALOK MAHRA,J.)
RANI 27.02.2026
Mamta Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af144
9e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9
e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004
ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.27 19:05:36 +05'30'
