Summons Cannot Be Issued To A Post Without Naming Person: Jharkhand High Court
The petitioners contended that summons had been issued against the Director and Branch Manager by their post, without mentioning the names of the persons holding those posts.
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the criminal proceeding, order taking cognizance and summoning order against the Director and Branch Manager of Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, holding that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued to a post without mentioning the name of the person holding the post.
A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held, “It is a settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued to a post without mentioning the name of the person who is holding the post.”
Advocate Bharat Kumar appeared for Petitioner and Advocate Rakesh Ranjan appeared for Resppndents.
The petitioners had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing and setting aside of the entire criminal proceeding, the order taking cognizance and the summoning order.
The complaint arose from an allegation concerning a 12-wheeler vehicle financed by the petitioner company. According to the complaint, the vehicle was seized along with coal loaded in it on March 2, 2015. It was alleged that the company's staff and Branch Manager stopped the vehicle, did marpit with the driver, snatched away ₹50,000 from him and also snatched away the vehicle.
On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statements of the inquiry witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi, found a prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
The petitioners contended that summons had been issued against the Director and Branch Manager by their post, without mentioning the names of the persons holding those posts.
Relying on earlier judgments, the petitioners submitted that a post is not a juristic person and that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued to a post without mentioning the name of the person who is holding the post.
The High Court accepted the contention.
The Court found that the JMFC, XXVII, Ranchi had committed a grave illegality by issuing summons against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 by their post, without mentioning the name of the person.
The Court held that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Director and Branch Manager would amount to abuse of process of law.
The petitioners also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Dutt and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, submitting that where, by legal fiction, the principle of vicarious liability is attracted, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned.
They further relied upon the principles stated in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI, contending that an individual alleged to have perpetrated an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused where there is sufficient evidence of an active role coupled with criminal intent, or where the statutory regime specifically attracts vicarious liability.
The petitioners submitted that they were not personally involved in the alleged offences and that, in the absence of a provision for vicarious liability under the IPC, the summoning order was legally unsustainable.
After considering the submissions and the materials on record, the High Court held that the case was fit for interference.
The Court accordingly quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding.
Cause Title: M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [2026:JHHC:25542]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Bharat Kumar
Respondents: Advocates Rakesh Ranjan, Santosh Kr. Tiwari and Shashank Shekhar Prasad