Jharkhand HC: Summons Cannot Be Issued Against Positions in Criminal Cases

Ranchi, India — The Jharkhand High Court reiterated that summons in a criminal case cannot be issued against positions or posts, as they are not juridical persons. In a recent judgment, the court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a Deputy General Manager (DGM) and a non-existent entity, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines, emphasizing the need to identify individual accountability in legal proceedings.

Case Background:

The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who issued summons against DGM, Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines, citing various offenses under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001. The petitioner argued that M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines does not legally exist, and summoning a non-existent postholder is unsustainable.

Contentions:

The petitioner contended that the D.G.M. positions exist within Gua Ore Mines, under the administrative control of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, but M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines is a non-entity. Citing legal precedent, the petitioner argued against summoning a post in criminal proceedings. The state, unable to identify the individual responsible, relied on the absence of a named post holder.

Court’s Observations:

The court underscored that a post is not a legal entity and cannot face trial in a criminal case. Summoning positions without identifying individuals responsible constitutes an illegality. Issuing summons against DGM Sail of M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines, a non-existent entity, is legally untenable. The court emphasized the necessity of naming accountable individuals in criminal proceedings.

Court’s Decision:

Finding the continuation of criminal proceedings against the non-existent entity and the postholder to be an abuse of process, the court quashed the proceedings. The judgment stressed the importance of legal accountability and individual identification in criminal cases.

Case Details:

• Case Title: M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (R.M.D.) V. The State of Jharkhand
• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
• Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2956 of 2022
• Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
• Advocate for the State: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P

This judgment reaffirms the principle of individual legal accountability and highlights the necessity of correctly identifying parties in criminal proceedings, preventing legal proceedings against non-existent entities or positions.

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!