Summons In Criminal Cases Can't Be Issued Against Person's Position, 'A Post Is Not A Juridical Person': Jharkhand High Court Reiterates

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or posts, as a post is not a juridical person. Therefore, the Court stated that taking cognizance without naming any individual responsible for the alleged criminal act is not sustainable in law.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case observed, "summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has committed illegality by issuing summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist. Thus, taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law."

The petition arose from a prosecution report citing DGM, Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines is the main accused under Sections 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187 and 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and under Sections 22 and 28 (i) of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001 and taken cognizance for the said offences and summons was issued citing DGM, Sail, M/s- RMD Gua Ore Mines as the main accused in the prosecution report.

The petitioner argued that 14 Deputy General Managers (DGMs) are stationed at Gua Ore Mines, and there is no legal entity by the name of M/s R.M.D. Gua Ore Mines. After the dissolution of the Raw Material Division, Gua Ore Mines is now under the administrative control of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL.

The petitioner's counsel further contended that the cognizance was based on vague allegations without specifying any particular wrongful act committed by anyone. The counsel also argued that since the cognizance was taken against a post rather than an individual, it is legally unsustainable. In support of this argument, the counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (in Cr.M.P. No. 1211 of 2023).

Conversely, the State submitted that the motor vehicle inspector could not determine the name of the post holder at the relevant time who was in control of the offending dumper. Therefore, the inspector could not identify the specific DGM (M.M.) responsible.

The Court observed that since a post is not a juridical person, a summons in a criminal case cannot be issued against positions or posts to face trial.

Accordingly, the Court held, “Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.243 of 2020 including the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa be quashed and set aside.”

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa was quashed and set aside, and the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed.

Case Title: M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (R.M.D.) V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 83

Click Here To Download Judgement